Talk:Monotropism

Peer Review 1

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

• There are a few grammatical errors that need to be taken care of. Describe what motor damage or motor deficit is. That is something a lay person might have a problem understanding.

4. Refs:2

5. Links:2

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting: 1.5

• I think the headings can be adjusted to give more details about their information.

8. Writing:1

• There are a few grammatical errors throughout. I think you need to mention the full names of the authors at least once maybe at the beginning and describe who they are better since you will mention them several times throughout the article.
• Watch out for jargon.

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)

Peer Review 2

1. Quality of Information: 2

• Varied, up-to-date references (most within last 8 years)

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

• Clear, direct way of writing makes it very easy to read
• Included many links to other articles. This helps to expand on topics covered in other articles such as 'Theory of Mind'.
• Sometimes, the article comes across as casual. Though this is very easy for the average reader to understand, it does not always read like an encyclopedia. Phrases such as 'step into someone else's shoes' or 'monotropism...is when' could be replaced with medical terminology or more formal diction.
• Though well-linked, there are still a few concepts that could use explanation. For instance, describe 'behavior control system' and 'exploring tests'.

4. Refs:2

• Very well-referenced as references are numerous and very diverse in their coverage of the topic
• Including the doi and/or pubmedid for the rest of the references could be helpful for anyone wishing to read the sources themselves.

5. Links:1

• The many links to other Wikipedia articles are very helpful, but this article is still an orphan. Because it is very relevant to other articles discussing autism and its features, it would be helpful if you inserted links to this page from others. In particular, you could link to this page from autism, autism spectrum or the Autism section of Theory of mind.

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting: 2

• Though their aren't very many subsections, the formatting for this article is very useful. The subsections regarding physiology, signs and symptoms, etc. are very similar to other medicine-related articles.

8. Writing:1

• Diction is often very casual. This is very easy to read, but can stray from the encyclopedia-like tone of most Wikipedia articles.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2

10. Outstanding?: 2

• The original image is a very nice inclusion. Perhaps the inclusion of additional images of other examples of stimming could help emphasize the diversity of these autism features between patients.
  

_______________
Total: 17 out of 20

Christian Erdman (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

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)

Rewrite

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)

Image description, what is stimming?

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)

Why the stimming pic? It's unrelated

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)

why the focus on children?

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)

External links

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)

Sure, the entire textual information found on the information portal could be added to the article but neither the updates and links found there nor the article archive can ever be part of Wikipedia. As far as I know, this website is the best archive and source of information on monotropism that exists, offering a lot of value to Wikipedia's readers interested in the topic. I would like to see more voices that deem it unsuitable.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed it's not actually her website (About) so it wouldn't really belong at her article either. Given it's not written by her, it seems more likely to to fall under ELNO #2. With regards to it being an archive, that would fall under WP:NOT. For general interest archives, MEDMOS recommends providing one link to Curlie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The website is maintained by Fergus Murray, who is a child of Dinah Murray and writer on the subject (cf the about page and eg this preprint). Wenn Lawson is also involved. For sure, it's a website that views monotropism favorably and promotes it to some degree but that's no different from the references and "further reading" entries in the article, so I don't see any issue linking to it.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about waiting for other opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)