170:, 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
698:
672:
563:
520:
461:
428:
406:
639:
587:
542:
483:
347:
325:
760:"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"
42:
752:(eg diagnosis "Individuals with conduction aphasia are able to express themselves fairly well, with some word finding and functional comprehension difficulty. 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. " should be part of symptoms.
803:
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
730:
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
817:
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
214:
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
776:
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
218:
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
188:
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
792:"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.
196:
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
788:
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
185:
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
448:, 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).
445:
800:
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)
334:
47:
372:
80:
70:
210:). 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.
656:
822:
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
126:
376:
368:
360:
122:
52:
107:
685:
731:
recognition is due to preserved auditory error detection mechanisms. Error sequences frequently fit a pattern of incorrect approximations")
99:
364:
573:
75:
492:
470:
648:
156:
660:
437:
830:
when you're ready, to get feedback from medical editors relating to the subject's accuracy and subject matter. Cheers --
441:
356:
215:
important to get it right! Cheers and thanks for thinking about GA, I think it's achievable without too much effort.
204:
The article needs more wikilinks; there are lots of concepts or anatomical structure mentioned that need to be linked
652:
551:
391:
208:
600:
529:
115:
17:
496:
827:
246:
I have replaced the wording and changed it to "aphasics", "aphasic people", "person", "aphasic person".
252:
I've added to the pathophysiology section by defining what leads up to it and simplifying the wording.
264:
Reworded almost all copyright violations until Earwig's copyright detector said "violation unlikely".
451:
Many sources lack publication dates, access dates, or are older than 5 - 10 years as specified per
749:
742:
735:
625:
621:
259:
190:
835:
681:
228:
150:
92:
778:
629:
452:
198:
741:
The article is still written from a clinician-patient perspective which is not in keeping with
734:
I worry that "aphasic" and "sufferers of aphasia" and such terms are stigmatising and violate
414:. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
279:
819:
415:
302:
171:
220:
823:
577:: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
831:
758:
This made me laugh, it is so general and also illustrative of the wordiness problem:
224:
146:
762:. To summarise this sentence, the problem has been localised to (areas of) the brain
814:
273:
182:
Overall I find the text easy to read, which is important for such a difficult topic
167:
839:
286:
232:
160:
813:
On closer inspection, I don't think this article meets GA criteria and, although
502:
Will check when other concerns have been addressed. On initial inspection, yes
748:
Many parts of the article need to be reordered to appropriate sections, per
807:
The third image does not show a stroke that could cause a condution aphasia
550:. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
818:
again you (1) make the article simplier to read, consider contacting the
599:: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
207:
Lastly, some parts of this article flag on a copyright check (
242:
Alright, I've been working on your suggested improvements.
258:
Reworded paragraph to get rid of a copyright violation of
255:
I've placed an image of a stroke to the "causes" section.
134:
103:
249:
I've added several important wikilinks to the article.
773:
Multiple references lack publication and access dates
267:
Added a video of a patient with conduction aphasia.
804:important given that is what this article is about
691:Images do not have suitable captions. See below.
335:understandable to an appropriately broad audience
8:
476:Pathophysiology is speculative. See below
30:
271:I have completed each task asked by you.
295:
61:
33:
759:
7:
738:, which I would encourage to be read
337:; spelling and grammar are correct.
333:. the prose is clear, concise, and
770:Multiple sentences lack references
24:
745:, which advocates a neutral tone
696:
670:
637:
585:
561:
540:
518:
481:
459:
426:
404:
345:
323:
482:
346:
324:
446:could reasonably be challenged
1:
657:valid non-free use rationales
697:
671:
638:
586:
562:
541:
519:
460:
427:
405:
855:
416:the layout style guideline
287:00:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
233:23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
161:23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
609:
506:
386:
311:
301:
535:Several aspects missing
298:
840:05:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
684:to the topic, and have
355:. it complies with the
172:6 good article criteria
18:Talk:Conduction aphasia
820:guide of copy editors
511:Broad in its coverage
828:WikiProject Medicine
603:or content dispute.
493:copyright violations
471:no original research
397:no original research
238:Work done by Koridas
221:WikiProject Medicine
723:Review as follows:
528:. it addresses the
444:. All content that
755:Wording is jumbled
708:Overall assessment
653:copyright statuses
616:, if possible, by
377:list incorporation
177:Preliminary review
716:
715:
686:suitable captions
659:are provided for
491:. it contains no
89:
88:
846:
700:
699:
674:
673:
661:non-free content
641:
640:
589:
588:
565:
564:
544:
543:
522:
521:
485:
484:
463:
462:
438:reliable sources
430:
429:
408:
407:
349:
348:
327:
326:
296:
285:
282:
276:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
854:
853:
849:
848:
847:
845:
844:
843:
721:
359:guidelines for
357:Manual of Style
307:Review Comment
294:
280:
274:
272:
240:
179:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
852:
850:
811:
810:
809:
808:
805:
801:
795:
794:
793:
790:
783:
782:
781:
774:
771:
765:
764:
763:
756:
753:
746:
739:
732:
720:
717:
714:
713:
711:
701:
693:
692:
689:
675:
667:
666:
664:
642:
634:
633:
607:
606:
604:
590:
582:
581:
578:
566:
558:
557:
555:
545:
537:
536:
533:
532:of the topic.
523:
515:
514:
504:
503:
500:
486:
478:
477:
474:
469:. it contains
464:
456:
455:
449:
431:
423:
422:
419:
409:
401:
400:
384:
383:
380:
369:words to watch
350:
342:
341:
338:
328:
320:
319:
309:
308:
305:
300:
293:
290:
269:
268:
265:
262:
256:
253:
250:
247:
239:
236:
212:
211:
205:
202:
194:
186:
183:
178:
175:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
851:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
816:
806:
802:
799:
798:
796:
791:
787:
786:
784:
780:
775:
772:
769:
768:
766:
761:
757:
754:
751:
747:
744:
740:
737:
733:
729:
728:
726:
725:
724:
718:
712:
709:
705:
702:
695:
694:
690:
687:
683:
679:
676:
669:
668:
665:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
643:
636:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
608:
605:
602:
598:
594:
591:
584:
583:
579:
576:
575:
570:
567:
560:
559:
556:
553:
552:summary style
549:
546:
539:
538:
534:
531:
527:
524:
517:
516:
512:
509:
505:
501:
498:
494:
490:
487:
480:
479:
475:
472:
468:
465:
458:
457:
454:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
425:
424:
420:
417:
413:
410:
403:
402:
398:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:lead sections
358:
354:
351:
344:
343:
339:
336:
332:
329:
322:
321:
317:
314:
310:
306:
304:
297:
291:
289:
288:
283:
277:
266:
263:
261:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
243:
237:
235:
234:
230:
226:
222:
216:
209:
206:
203:
200:
195:
192:
187:
184:
181:
180:
176:
174:
173:
169:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
826:and post at
812:
727:Readability
722:
707:
703:
680:. media are
677:
647:. media are
644:
617:
613:
610:
596:
592:
572:
568:
547:
530:main aspects
525:
510:
507:
488:
466:
442:cited inline
433:
411:
396:
390:
387:
352:
330:
316:Well-written
315:
312:
270:
260:this article
241:
217:
213:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
824:peer review
767:References
651:with their
614:Illustrated
104:visual edit
719:Commentary
580:See below
497:plagiarism
421:See below
392:Verifiable
382:See below
340:See below
292:Assessment
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
785:Accuracy
750:WP:MEDMOS
743:WP:MEDMOS
736:WP:MEDMOS
303:Attribute
191:WP:MEDMOS
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
832:Tom (LT)
779:WP:MEDRS
682:relevant
620:such as
601:edit war
453:WP:MEDRS
225:Tom (LT)
199:WP:MEDRS
157:contribs
147:Tom (LT)
76:Criteria
815:Koridas
797:Images
789:causes.
574:Neutral
373:fiction
168:Koridas
127:history
108:history
94:Article
655:, and
649:tagged
622:images
597:Stable
375:, and
365:layout
630:audio
628:, or
626:video
618:media
395:with
299:Rate
136:Watch
16:<
836:talk
440:are
275:Kori
229:talk
166:Hi @
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
554:).
495:or
838:)
710:.
706:.
688:.
678:6b
663:.
645:6a
632::
624:,
611:6.
595:.
571:.
548:3b
526:3a
513::
508:3.
499:.
489:2d
473:.
467:2c
436:.
434:2b
418:.
412:2a
399::
388:2.
379:.
371:,
367:,
363:,
353:1b
331:1a
318::
313:1.
231:)
223:--
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
834:(
704:7
593:5
569:4
284:)
281:@
278:(
227:(
201:)
193:)
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.