Talk:Conduction aphasia/GA1

Active discussions

GA ReviewEdit

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

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Koridas, thanks for improving this article and taking it to GA. I've reviewed a number of nominations before and will review this article for you. Firstly, thanks for trying to edit an article on this topic. It has always been one of the more difficult areas for me and I can see that, although you've only made edits to the article yesterday, you are an active editor and the article is at first glance near a state where GA might be considered. Also you may have been planning to edit it some more while it waits months for a review but - surprise! - you get one the next day :). I'm going to make some preliminary comments, put the article on hold, and then continue my review when those comments are addressed. I am reviewing against the 6 good article criteria

Preliminary reviewEdit

  • Overall I find the text easy to read, which is important for such a difficult topic
  • There is one image, and its relevance to the topic and caption need to be improved. You could consider adding one or two more images to help demonstrate things such as what is a stroke to a lay reader
  • The text refers continually to "patients". I would read through the text and make sure it's reworded to be people-centric, remembering that people with this condition spend most of their lives not in a hospital (I refer to the style guideline WP:MEDMOS)
  • The pathophysiology section needs to be improved, explaining in general form what leads to the damage, and will need to be written in a way that is more definitive and with a better source (such as a review article - see WP:MEDRS)
  • The article needs more wikilinks; there are lots of concepts or anatomical structure mentioned that need to be linked
  • Lastly, some parts of this article flag on a copyright check ([1]). It is only a few sentences and I can see that they were added before your edits. Click 'compare' to view the sentences. They will need to be revisited to pass.

I figured this might take at least a week or so to address so I'm going to put this article on hold. If there's no or minimal progress within two weeks I'll mark the article as failed; otherwise I'll do a more thorough review. This is a difficult topic to understand and write about so I think it's important to get it right! Cheers and thanks for thinking about GA, I think it's achievable without too much effort.

Also lastly, I see you're not mainly a medical editor, yet some areas of this topic are quite complex. If you do need some help with a medical part of the article (such as the pathophysiology section), you may be able to get some help by asking at WikiProject Medicine --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Work done by KoridasEdit

Alright, I've been working on your suggested improvements.

  1. I have replaced the wording and changed it to "aphasics", "aphasic people", "person", "aphasic person".
  2. I've added several important wikilinks to the article.
  3. I've added to the pathophysiology section by defining what leads up to it and simplifying the wording.
  4. I've placed an image of a stroke to the "causes" section.
  5. Reworded paragraph to get rid of a copyright violation of this article
  6. Reworded almost all copyright violations until Earwig's copyright detector said "violation unlikely".
  7. Added a video of a patient with conduction aphasia.

I have completed each task asked by you. Kori (@) 00:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


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. See below
  1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See below
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. See below
  2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Many sources lack publication dates, access dates, or are older than 5 - 10 years as specified per WP:MEDRS
  2c. it contains no original research. Pathophysiology is speculative. See below
  2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Will check when other concerns have been addressed. On initial inspection, yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Several aspects missing
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. See below
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images do not have suitable captions. See below.
  7. Overall assessment.


Review as follows:

  • Readability
    • I do not find the text of the article is clear, maybe because it is very wordy ("However, aphasics recognize their paraphasias and errors and will repetitively try to correct them. Typically, an aphasic will make multiple attempts correcting phonological speech errors until they are successful. This recognition is due to preserved auditory error detection mechanisms.[10] Error sequences frequently fit a pattern of incorrect approximations")
    • I worry that "aphasic" and "sufferers of aphasia" and such terms are stigmatising and violate WP:MEDMOS, which I would encourage to be read
    • The article is still written from a clinician-patient perspective which is not in keeping with WP:MEDMOS, which advocates a neutral tone
    • Many parts of the article need to be reordered to appropriate sections, per WP:MEDMOS (eg diagnosis "Individuals with conduction aphasia are able to express themselves fairly well, with some word finding and functional comprehension difficulty.[20] Although people with aphasia may be able to express themselves fairly well, they tend to have issues repeating phrases, especially phrases that are long and complex.[20] " should be part of symptoms.
    • Wording is jumbled
    • This made me laugh, it is so general and also illustrative of the wordiness problem: "Recent research has pointed to multiple different explanations for conduction aphasia, which is based on newer models suggesting language is facilitated by "cortically based, anatomically distributed, modular networks." In simpler terms, the research is based on the fact that it is most likely that is occurs with the condition being built through the cerebrum". To summarise this sentence, the problem has been localised to (areas of) the brain
  • References
    • Multiple sentences lack references
    • Multiple references lack publication and access dates
    • Some references are too old to be used appropriately here - most should be within the last 5 - 10 years to ensure information is current. This is important for an article like this where the underlying cause has not been completely elucidated. I refer here to WP:MEDRS
  • Accuracy
    • The pathophysiology section is not right. "It is entirely unclear, although the cause is known, what leads up to the condition.". There are several very well known causes, including strokes, and risk factors for these causes.
    • "There is no standard treatment for aphasia" This is not right. The standard treatment is treatment of a reversible cause, secondary prevention of a known cause (such as a stroke), and speech / language therapy for the aphasia.
  • Images
    • The first image does not relate to the topic. Where is the mention of Conduction aphasia? The highlighted images relate to expressive (Broca's) and receptive (Wernicke's areas)
    • The caption of the second image - "Video of a woman who suffers from conduction aphasia. Notice how some of her words sound jumbled or messed up" describes expressive aphasia and paraphasias, common to most types of aphasia, without highlighting the critical hallmarks or conduction aphasia, which is important given that is what this article is about
    • The third image does not show a stroke that could cause a condution aphasia

On closer inspection, I don't think this article meets GA criteria and, although Koridas you have been very responsive, I don't think you're going to be able to correct a lot of the subject matter related problems accurately in a reasonable time frame. I will fail this article for the moment and invite you to renominate when you feel this article is ready. I suggest prior to nomination again you (1) make the article simplier to read, consider contacting the guide of copy editors for this (2) look at some other medical good articles for comparison for content and structure, (3) check for copyright problems again and (4) nominate at peer review and post at WikiProject Medicine when you're ready, to get feedback from medical editors relating to the subject's accuracy and subject matter. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Conduction aphasia/GA1" page.