Talk:Dysgraphia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This is reasonably well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See Talk:Dysgraphia#Faulty sourcing and the tags placed by User:SandyGeorgia [1]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Productive editing has been occurring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images are used. The GA criteria enables images to be added but doesn't require them.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Comments:

   • I understand this is part of a class project: Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language9APSWI323.

   *2a. Replace the references to the general-purpose dictionaries with something more authoritative. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

   • 2b. Replace the [citation needed] tags a reference to show where this information is coming from.
   • 2c. Remove the advice on teaching. It is ok to report that the 'The National Center for Learning Disabilities advocates doing this....' but Wikipedia should not be saying 'Do this...' or 'people should be doing this...'
   • 1a. In "Signs and symptoms", ...such as creating an L shape with your arm - I don't think this example helps us understand the symptom (an image may help). I haven't seen many people writing with un-bent arms.
   • 1a. Remove the passive voice, like "It is suggested..."
   • 2a. Continue searching for academic journals that discuss Dysgraphia. For example, these article usually have a "Diagnosis" section, but the article currently only has a paragraph on this, cited to an advocacy organization (same with most of the "Treatment" paragraph above it). Also, it would be very good to back up theadvocacy organization in the "In the classroom" section to show that what they are doing is grounded in science.

Conclusion

I've put the review on hold. If the problems with the referencing are addressed the review can continue. maclean (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• There has been some positive editing to the article but after 2 weeks, issues still remain. Due to the reasons noted above, this article does not meet the GA criteria at the present time. maclean (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)