Talk:Cerebellar theory of dyslexia

Cerebellar theory of dyslexia was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 21, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Psychology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

Medicine: Neurology

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
	This redirect is supported by the Neurology task force.

Education

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cerebellar theory of dyslexia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After Jytdog removed large amounts of material for failing WP:MEDRS and WP:SYN earlier this month, and earlier similar cleanups by Hecseur and Illegitimate Barrister, this became a two-paragraph stub. However, this is a big topic, with over 17k hits for cerebellum and dyslexia in Google Scholar. So it falls into the "immediate fail" criteria of WP:GACR, both for being unstable and for being a long way from meeting criterion 3 (broadness of coverage). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be merged to Neurological research into dyslexia but I stopped due to the GAR tag. This is one theory among many and has lots of holes in it, but it is pushed very hard by people marketing (or who are fans of) the discredited Dore Programme Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the GA review, so please don't let that be an obstacle to additional cleanups. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]