Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stuttering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stuttering

Self-nomination. I'm not entirely certain if it's FA-worthy, but I put a good deal of work into it and submitted it to peer review in hopes that this could become a featured article. Regardless, Featured article or not, I am very interested in bringing this page up to a high standard, so I encourage you to be cruel-but-fair on anything you think should be changed, improved, fixed, or whatever. --Clngre 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Lovely article, but still a few things that need to be changed. Pictures are traditionally placed in left-right alternating order, so the larynx picture should be moved to the left. The beginning of the prose in Onset and development seems to have been chopped off, and starts in mid sentence. Just checking, but if those video clips are copyrighted, have they given us permission to have them here? Again, in Types of disfluency the prose seems to start mid sentence. Formatting error, possibly? Finally, the three Famous Blank sections either need to be turned into narrative, or moved somewhere else. I would rather see them moved some place else. Good job, I like the article! --Taitcha 04:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the seemingly truncated openings and I've patched them up now. You're also right about the videos and getting appropriate permission, I'll get on that right away and move the table to the talk page for the time being. I don't really agree about the image placement though. While I understand that tradition might dictate a L-R-L-R pattern or whatever, I think that kind of becomes arbitrary when you get down to each individual article. As a rule of thumb L-R looks better, yes, but I dont think it would look very good in this particular situation. Also the famous x lists I really don't care that much about one way or the other. I had little or no hand in any of them, but just as a reader I think a list format would be more effective. I definitely open to hear some more opinions or arguments on these matters --Clngre 06:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for fixing the clipped sentences. The picture, though I disagree, I'm willing to let slide as a difference of opinion. But I'm afraid I have to object unless the lists are put somewhere else. I agree that a list is effective for what they are, but what they are is trivia. Interesting, perhaps, but not important to the article. Let's get them on another page, appropriately titled, and simply link to that page from this article. I think a real problem with lists in these Featured Articles is that they tend to get corrupted very quickly, and also seem to just beg to be expanded to ridiculous lengths. Anyway, once the lists are taken off I'll happily support. --Taitcha 02:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean know, especially about how they usually invite gross expansion, I totally agree with that. I made a seperate page for the lists --Clngre 03:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

My objections have been taken care of. I now Support --Taitcha 05:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object, many of the references in the text are given as direct numbered links. These are specifically recommended against in Wikipedia:Cite sources and may cause problems in future if the contents of those links change, for example a domain disappears and is replaced by a pornography/link farm. Please consider using a footnoting system such as Wikipedia:Footnote3 or another similar one.

Ok, you're right about that. I just converted them to the correct footnote format, check it out now to see if theres anything else you object to --Clngre 15:06, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

No specific other objections, more notes through the text would be nice, but since it is now in the top 1% I will instead support Mozzerati 16:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Comments: In no particular order, and hopefully fair and not-quite cruel. 1. The developmental table is of a troublesome width that causes the adjacent text to limit itself to a very narrow column on both browsers I've looked at with fairly typical text settings (ie. medium text size in IE); the text of the table itself is also small and hard to read. 2. The statement about "stuttering awareness day" just kind of sits there - should it really be before the TOC? 3. The lead starts excellently but would flow better if the paragraphs were shortened; in particular I'd prefer to see the stuff after "for example" below the TOC and in the section detailing characteristics of the disorder. 4. In general, I'd like to see the article go beyond the medical/technical focus that it currently has. Specifically, I'd like to see a section on societal and mass culture reaction to stuttering. How were/are stutterers viewed/responded to in different times and cultures? There are lots of examples of stuttering characters used as humor, for example, even after making fun of other types of disabilities became taboo. There are also examples of stuttering used to indicate some underlying issue (ie. "My Generation". 5. Have there been any notable people who were also stutterers? Such a list or link to a list would be a useful addition. Jgm 18:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've brought up.I changed the table now, so tell me if it looks better or worse.It's hard to be specific when sizing a table or image or whatever because you can never really know how it'll be presented across different browsers or font or screen sizes. I just tried to reach a happy balance between too wide and too thin but I cant really tell if its alright or not. If you'd like to fiddle with it, be my guest; I'm somewhat blind to how it looks or might look. I also smoothed out the lead, so that answers 3.. There is already link at the bottom to "list of famous stutterers" which kind of answers 5. I'll get on 4 soon. Thats a pretty big topic, but youre right in thinking that it really should be included. --Clngre 17:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I added a new section, you can check it out now to see if it's sufficient. The biggest problem I had was figuring out a succinct and accurate name for the section. I just settled on "reactions to stuttering" but if you have a better idea I encourage you to rename it. --Clngre 20:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I am quite impressed. Nice job, I support this as a FA. Jgm 21:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It's a cool article, but I wish some of the claims in it had sources attributed to them. It should be easy with the new footnote system to say "with 5% of all children at some point having displaying stuttering behavior and with most outgrowing it before adolescence" and then add a footnote, for example. Or "with 70% of individuals with developmental stuttering benefiting" and then a footnote. I hope you can fix this, because I'd really like to see it featured. Dave (talk) 01:16, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I fixed those up now. Let me know if they're alright --Clngre 20:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I read today that Albert II, Prince of Monaco stutters when he speaks French (his father's first language), but not when he speaks English (his mother's). How come someone can stutter in one language but not another? jguk 18:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why with any certainty. It's one of the most interesting things about stuttering -- that people can speak 100% fluently under certain conditions. I have a stutter and I'm tremendously articulate when talking to myself, but when I step outside to door and start talking to a friend, I stutter. Same thing for adopting "voices" or "characters." Stutterers can usually increase fluency immensely by acting or speaking with a fake accent. I've read about some stutterers who don't stutter when speaking in languages of a foreign tongue, not necessarily because the language has qualities that are inherently easier for a stutterer to speak, but because theres something profoundly different going on psychologically. I read somewhere before that it's simply a matter of accessing the physical mechanisms of speech in an unfamiliar, backdoor kind of way, a way that doest already have years of negative or destructive associations leeching it. That seems like a reasonable theory, but I dont know for sure. If I knew what it was exactly, how it truly worked, I'd cure my stutter instantly and be a very happy man. --Clngre 18:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of this should go into the article! jguk 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Being the son of Grace Kelly, English is not totally foreign to Albert of Monaco. Also, I read that in the past he had a speech coach (or something) for English, since most of what he did was represent Monaco outside the country. Luis rib 22:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)