Talk:Thought broadcasting

Thought broadcasting has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 28, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 17, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 20 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jab0912. Peer reviewers: Rhong4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Lead: Lead paragraph is concise and adequately describes the article's topic. Perhaps one sentence summarizing treatment can be included in the lead as well.
Content: Added content about the lawsuit is interesting due to its relevancy to the topic.
Tone and Balance: Added content is neutral. There is no apparent bias.
Sources and References: Some of the sources are a little dated. Perhaps more recent articles can be added.
Overall, the content is improved and easy to read. Good grammatical changes. Maybe some wiki links to OCPD, schizoaffective, bipolar, David Letterman can be included for completeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhong4 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ideas. I went ahead and added some treatment info to the lead and did another search to see how relevant some of the older sources still are. Will add some more hyperlinks as well since I agree that would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jab0912 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thought broadcasting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101228020846/http://www.movementdisorders.org/UserFiles/file/Long_SAPS_2000_publish(1).pdf to http://www.movementdisorders.org/UserFiles/file/Long_SAPS_2000_publish(1).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thought broadcasting/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my first task will be to refamiliarize myself with WP:MEDRS and check that issues brought up in the first (very recent) review have been addressed. This may take me some time, but I'm going to be diving into it this weekend so please bear with me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the picking up the article. For some reason I didn't get notified in my talk page; I'll try to address the issues brought up as soon as possible. The Blue Rider

18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The glitch was probably due to the username change, if it was between nomination and the start of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to The Blue Rider and any others who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The paragraph of 'Definition', especially in describing the third definition, seems to imply that "thought broadcasting" is possible/correct, and not a delusion. I think this is just awkward phrasing. Rephrase to make sure the distinction clearer. I've rephrased the paragraph, but do tell me if it's still lacking in clarity or not. The Blue Rider 17:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made prose tweaks myself to save us both time. Please let me know if there are any changes you object to. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	This sentence is unsourced - add cite: "Autonoetic agnosia manifestations, that is, a deficit in the ability to identify self-generated mental events, is an occurrence in individuals with thought broadcasting." Y Done Pass, issue addressed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, 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).	Tertiary sources, such as #s 2, 3, and 8, should have a page number/range, or at minimum a chapter heading, to assist the reader. These are large, sometimes multi-volume works and the specific facts about thought broadcasting should be locatable. Issue addressed. The quotes from papers included in cites are good, especially since many/most are not open access. If possible, please add similar quotations from the sources to the cites where they are not currently present (such as #s 4, 9, 12, 30) Issue addressed. Cite #18 (Hoffman) is missing a journal Y Done Cite #7 - ICD - should have an archive link and a date of archive/access added as well as a publisher. Y Done I'm still assessing the reliability of some of the sources but so far things are checking out, definitely an improvement from the prior review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Ok, so Schizophrenia Bulletin Open - it's a pretty new journal. What's the case to be made for its reliability, and of this study in particular? Aarhus University is well regarded, but I just want to double check and get your opinion. The paper is published on the Oxford Academy library, so it has been peer-reviewed. The university, as you said, is respected and the authors themselves have good indexes.^[1]^[2]^[3] That all sounds fine, additional digging on my part turned up nothing of concern. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Will double-check for compliance to WP:MEDRS at the end of the review, but I think we're in good shape here. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing problematic, but unsurprising as many sources are not fully available to the bot. Hold for manual check. First manual check turns up no issues, but will check once more at end of review. Pass, no issues found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are more details and studies out there, but given the WP:MEDRS guidelines, this seems like a good encyclopedic summary without pulling extensively from primary sources/studies. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail or failure to summarize. Removed one redundant paragraph and combined a few sentences here and there. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There were quite a few changes recently, following the last GA review, but no ongoing disputes unrelated to GA reviewing and no reason to think the article won't be stable if it meets the GA standard. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Nice to see the painting was released by the artist, otherwise that would be a tricky one. No issues, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The first caption, re television/radio/internet, is uncited both in the lead and in the caption itself. Add source. Y Done Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ "Riccardo Fusaroli". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
^ "Arndis Simonsen". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.
^ "Andreas Roepstorff". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[1] "Riccardo Fusaroli". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[2] "Arndis Simonsen". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[3] "Andreas Roepstorff". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-09-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]