Talk:Thought broadcasting/GA2

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my first task will be to refamiliarize myself with WP:MEDRS and check that issues brought up in the first (very recent) review have been addressed. This may take me some time, but I'm going to be diving into it this weekend so please bear with me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the picking up the article. For some reason I didn't get notified in my talk page; I'll try to address the issues brought up as soon as possible. The Blue Rider

18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The glitch was probably due to the username change, if it was between nomination and the start of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to The Blue Rider and any others who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The paragraph of 'Definition', especially in describing the third definition, seems to imply that "thought broadcasting" is possible/correct, and not a delusion. I think this is just awkward phrasing. Rephrase to make sure the distinction clearer. I've rephrased the paragraph, but do tell me if it's still lacking in clarity or not. The Blue Rider 17:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made prose tweaks myself to save us both time. Please let me know if there are any changes you object to. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	This sentence is unsourced - add cite: "Autonoetic agnosia manifestations, that is, a deficit in the ability to identify self-generated mental events, is an occurrence in individuals with thought broadcasting." Y Done Pass, issue addressed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Tertiary sources, such as #s 2, 3, and 8, should have a page number/range, or at minimum a chapter heading, to assist the reader. These are large, sometimes multi-volume works and the specific facts about thought broadcasting should be locatable. Issue addressed. The quotes from papers included in cites are good, especially since many/most are not open access. If possible, please add similar quotations from the sources to the cites where they are not currently present (such as #s 4, 9, 12, 30) Issue addressed. Cite #18 (Hoffman) is missing a journal Y Done Cite #7 - ICD - should have an archive link and a date of archive/access added as well as a publisher. Y Done I'm still assessing the reliability of some of the sources but so far things are checking out, definitely an improvement from the prior review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Ok, so Schizophrenia Bulletin Open - it's a pretty new journal. What's the case to be made for its reliability, and of this study in particular? Aarhus University is well regarded, but I just want to double check and get your opinion. The paper is published on the Oxford Academy library, so it has been peer-reviewed. The university, as you said, is respected and the authors themselves have good indexes.^[1]^[2]^[3] That all sounds fine, additional digging on my part turned up nothing of concern. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Will double-check for compliance to WP:MEDRS at the end of the review, but I think we're in good shape here. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing problematic, but unsurprising as many sources are not fully available to the bot. Hold for manual check. First manual check turns up no issues, but will check once more at end of review. Pass, no issues found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are more details and studies out there, but given the WP:MEDRS guidelines, this seems like a good encyclopedic summary without pulling extensively from primary sources/studies. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail or failure to summarize. Removed one redundant paragraph and combined a few sentences here and there. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There were quite a few changes recently, following the last GA review, but no ongoing disputes unrelated to GA reviewing and no reason to think the article won't be stable if it meets the GA standard. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Nice to see the painting was released by the artist, otherwise that would be a tricky one. No issues, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The first caption, re television/radio/internet, is uncited both in the lead and in the caption itself. Add source. Y Done Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ "Riccardo Fusaroli". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
^ "Arndis Simonsen". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
^ "Andreas Roepstorff". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[1] "Riccardo Fusaroli". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[2] "Arndis Simonsen". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[3] "Andreas Roepstorff". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]