Template:Did you know nominations/Phonological Dyslexia
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Schwede66 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Phonological dyslexia
[edit]- ... that hyphenation can help improve reading in acquired phonological dyslexia?
Created/expanded by ProBonoPublicoA90 (talk), Dolfrog (talk). Nominated by ProBonoPublicoA90 (talk) at 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
5x expansion okay; I'm sorry, but I don't find the hook mentioned in the article. Did I miss anything? Also QPQ is needed. Mspraveen (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- ProBonoPublicoA90 does not have any previously published DYKs. No QPQ necessary.Maile66 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- The article's been a bit unstable, but the initial expansion began on August 7 (so recently enough before nomination) and was more than fivefold, the latest version I found today was also more than five times expanded, and although I took out a sentence that repeated a point, I replaced it with another point, so it is still long enough. I filled out an incomplete ref, copyedited and did some tweaking and linked the 2 reading strategies; I would have linked to the independent articles on them, but the Whole Language one does not actually mention whole-word. I was able to check about half the references and found no overly close paraphrasing. However, I am unclear as to what is meant by lexicality - if this refers to the developed vocabulary mentioned earlier, that could usefully be clarified - or by imageability/concreteness (equated in the source). While admittedly not well informed on this subject matter, I suspect if I find these terms less than clear, the general reader would also appreciate a brief explanation. The first body section of the article is a level lower than it should be and should logically take a step back and characterize phonological dyslexia on a basic level; perhaps all that is needed here is to change the section header from Deep and phonological dyslexia to Characterization? I also could not find the referenced point about previously developed vocabulary in the cited reference (Dérouesné J, Beauvois MF (December 1979)). The hook is short enough, but after reading the article I have the impression this disability is always acquired; wouldn't it be better to drop that word from the hook? The hook is cited; I made it more obviously so by rejiggering that section. I am not sure how valid a study of one person is in recommending a therapy, so I would be happier if follow-up citations could be added affirming the applicability of this finding, but that might be going beyond the DYK standard. In short, a bit more clean-up and clarification and I believe this will be ready. On the issue of having "acquired" in the hook, I'm prepared to defer to the article expanders' expertise :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It has been a week with no action. Some progress to solving the issues raised above—including that new hook!—needs to occur within the next week. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've pinged ProBonoPublicoA90 again, but he/she hasn't edited since the 30th. This may be a start of the new academic term issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC) ... to clarify, the above is the new hook, and is supported in the article. The nominator replaced the original hook instead of writing it out below as an alt. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Issues still present. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
