This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1
4. Refs:2
5. Links:2
6. Responsive to comments:2
7. Formatting: 1.5
8. Writing:1
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total:17.5 out of 20
Jlukeedwards ( talk) 06:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1
4. Refs:2
5. Links:1
6. Responsive to comments:2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing:1
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Christian Erdman ( talk) 15:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2. Contrary to Reviewer 2, i think a casual tone does not have to mean a lack of encyclopedic tone. I felt the article was very readable and well written.
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1 - Orphan
6. Responsive to comments: 1 No response to the orphan tag made 3 days ago. If you just can't figure a way to make the article unorphaned, consider updating the tag to orphan-att to get help from the wiki community.
7. Formatting: 2 Great break down.
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 Good information, original photo.
_______________
total: 18/20
Michael K. Duke ( talk) 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This piece was too long for what it is, and overwhelmingly written in a medical/deficit-based paradigm that the concept of monotropism is specifically an effort to get away from. Most of the content was about autism in general, not specifically how the lens of monotropism explains it, with far too much on neuroloscience that hasn't yet been explicitly related to monotropism by researchers. It seems to have been written less with the needs of Wikipedia in mind, and more for the completion of an assignment.
I've made some extensive cuts, and started work on setting out how exactly monotropism explains the many features of autism. It could still use some further work, for example on sensory differences in autism. Potential editors might like to refer to the entry on monotropism in Fred R. Volkmar' Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders.
-- Oolong ( talk) 11:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The description of the image uses a shorthand term that is not referenced nor described in the main article. What is stimming? The use of this word is exclusionary and not informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.178.85 ( talk) 09:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Informative article, but why is the header photo, as well as even inline, a picture of a kid stimming? Nowhere in the article is mentioned the relationship between stimming and monotropic focus; I don't pretend to be a master of each subject area, but it seems to me like an unrelated inclusion based on just "Autistic people are monotropic, autistic people also stim; a pic in this article would be nice, but I'm uninspired to find one related to monotropism so I'll just throw in a pic g a kid stimming." -- If stimming is truly connected to monotropic focus in a deep way other than this AB->AC->BC relation, then could you please expound on it in the article? "Here's a picture of a kid stimming. Stimming is directly relevant because in monotropism, one's focus somethingsomethingsomething stimming somethingsomething required to somethingsomething effectively yield one's attention something," etc. Otherwise, delete the pic. Subcortical ( talk) 13:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for whoever changed it to the cow pic :) Subcortical ( talk) 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Other than the introduction, this article is almost entirely about monotropism in children. Why? Can we widen this to more of the population? Marnanel ( talk) 13:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Dinah Murray has her own article, which is where her info can be promoted; this does not belong in this article, as it offers nothing beyond what would be in this article if the article were at a higher (eg FA) level. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
From the current 27 Feb 2024 version of the article,
> This cognitive strategy has been posited as the central underlying feature of autism.
76.14.91.86 also noticed this wording was somewhat absolute, which is why they changed it.
Perhaps this sentence could be improved by linking to other qualities that have been posited as central underlying features of autism?
Although that might also be presupposing a pathology paradigm, and I see that Oolong rewrote this article to be less biomedical in nature. Patrickpowns ( talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1
4. Refs:2
5. Links:2
6. Responsive to comments:2
7. Formatting: 1.5
8. Writing:1
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total:17.5 out of 20
Jlukeedwards ( talk) 06:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1
4. Refs:2
5. Links:1
6. Responsive to comments:2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing:1
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Christian Erdman ( talk) 15:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2. Contrary to Reviewer 2, i think a casual tone does not have to mean a lack of encyclopedic tone. I felt the article was very readable and well written.
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1 - Orphan
6. Responsive to comments: 1 No response to the orphan tag made 3 days ago. If you just can't figure a way to make the article unorphaned, consider updating the tag to orphan-att to get help from the wiki community.
7. Formatting: 2 Great break down.
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 Good information, original photo.
_______________
total: 18/20
Michael K. Duke ( talk) 15:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This piece was too long for what it is, and overwhelmingly written in a medical/deficit-based paradigm that the concept of monotropism is specifically an effort to get away from. Most of the content was about autism in general, not specifically how the lens of monotropism explains it, with far too much on neuroloscience that hasn't yet been explicitly related to monotropism by researchers. It seems to have been written less with the needs of Wikipedia in mind, and more for the completion of an assignment.
I've made some extensive cuts, and started work on setting out how exactly monotropism explains the many features of autism. It could still use some further work, for example on sensory differences in autism. Potential editors might like to refer to the entry on monotropism in Fred R. Volkmar' Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders.
-- Oolong ( talk) 11:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The description of the image uses a shorthand term that is not referenced nor described in the main article. What is stimming? The use of this word is exclusionary and not informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.178.85 ( talk) 09:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Informative article, but why is the header photo, as well as even inline, a picture of a kid stimming? Nowhere in the article is mentioned the relationship between stimming and monotropic focus; I don't pretend to be a master of each subject area, but it seems to me like an unrelated inclusion based on just "Autistic people are monotropic, autistic people also stim; a pic in this article would be nice, but I'm uninspired to find one related to monotropism so I'll just throw in a pic g a kid stimming." -- If stimming is truly connected to monotropic focus in a deep way other than this AB->AC->BC relation, then could you please expound on it in the article? "Here's a picture of a kid stimming. Stimming is directly relevant because in monotropism, one's focus somethingsomethingsomething stimming somethingsomething required to somethingsomething effectively yield one's attention something," etc. Otherwise, delete the pic. Subcortical ( talk) 13:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for whoever changed it to the cow pic :) Subcortical ( talk) 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Other than the introduction, this article is almost entirely about monotropism in children. Why? Can we widen this to more of the population? Marnanel ( talk) 13:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Dinah Murray has her own article, which is where her info can be promoted; this does not belong in this article, as it offers nothing beyond what would be in this article if the article were at a higher (eg FA) level. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
From the current 27 Feb 2024 version of the article,
> This cognitive strategy has been posited as the central underlying feature of autism.
76.14.91.86 also noticed this wording was somewhat absolute, which is why they changed it.
Perhaps this sentence could be improved by linking to other qualities that have been posited as central underlying features of autism?
Although that might also be presupposing a pathology paradigm, and I see that Oolong rewrote this article to be less biomedical in nature. Patrickpowns ( talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)