Talk:Reading

Subvocalized reading

The page for subvocalization and this one contradict. I subvocalize when I read and I have had the reading level of a 12 grader since I was in 7th grade. Others I know also subvocalize and they excel in reading just as much as I do. I'm sorry but that information is heavily biased and promotes speed reading.

Rereading

I re-added the book published by Harvard, under the rereading paragraph. It helps establish the concept and term as being notable beyond just a casual sense, and it is one of few academic works published on the subject. The book goes beyond just listing an authors favorite books, it examines the phenomenon in general, by a literature professor. Also don't throw around the word "advertising", it's uncalled for, see WP:FAITH, if it was astroturfing it would be obvious. The edit was made in good faith. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just about to add a link to an article at LitHub about re-reading (which might be the usual American spelling). Here it is, in case that section is already over-loaded: Even Better the Second (or Third, or Fourth…) Time: In Praise of Re-Reading, LitHub, July 14, 2025

And a subarticle on Re-reading might be a good idea. Thoughts? Title is a redirect back here at present. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

What to split?

@Seefooddiet, I'm curious if you have any initial ideas for what could be split off and summary styled. This article is almost charming in how evenly unorganized it is. It seems like Learning to read is plausible, for a start. Remsense ‥ 论 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Learning to read, stages to skilled reading could be on the same article. Teaching reading should be its own article due to length. Science of reading could be its own article. seefooddiet (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will review this and make some suggestions soon. John NH John NH (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have prepared a draft of a sub-article entitled Science of reading. John NH (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

More to come. John NH (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I accepted the draft. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has been split off, but the content has not been removed from the Reading article. seefooddiet (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that. I will reduce the main article soon. John NH (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

More to follow. John NH (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Problem still persists seefooddiet (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the duplications. fgnievinski (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Really nice work k 2601:C4:1:FB10:F4E6:B900:9109:83E8 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I made another reduction today. More to follow and it will take some time. This is a big project for several reasons. John NH

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably

Consider splitting this into sub-section with pictures groups and sub-headings as it is to long and needs a better structure. Some of this needs rewording or made simpler as this is a article about reading! DUCK.IN.A.LEMONADE.STAND (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The work of splitting sections off is ongoing; this is certainly a long article! I will point out that English Wikipedia is Not written in simple English. ESL readers can go to Simple:Reading for a more easy-to-read experience. No article should be needlessly complex, of course, but I don't think Reading has a particular need to be simpler than other articles. TheSavageNorwegian 16:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have been involved with his article for many years, but I did not start it. Its structure is the result of many different contributors. Of course, I have done some rearranging, but always with respect to the other contributors. I think that most of the readers of this article are educators who are looking for some current information. The school systems around the world are struggling to improve the reading results of children. So, I don't think they are intimidated with the language used. I have attempted to make it readable and it seems to have a score around grade 10-11 (college level). I will make some more changes soon.

Yes, it is long but I feel that most readers want the information in one place, rather than having to search through many articles. Having said that, there are separate articles for Phonics, Systematic Phonics, Whole Language, Literacy, Balanced Literacy, etc. We are an evidence based organization, so I am wondering what evidence there is to say how long is too long. Do you have any information on that? John NH (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Personaly for me it makes sense and it is amzing that you have managed to work on this for years. I am quite busy at the moment but I have no evidence at this second if I find some spare time I will have a look. I just thought that this article was what all wiki articles should be, factual. I just thought some reader may get tired of how long this article may be and feel that they could find a better website. You do make a fair point and I may or might have been in the wrong. I am grateful for your comment and have a nice day or night. DUCK.IN.A.LEMONADE.STAND (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. As I mentioned, I have split off some portions. As I have not received any advice on how long is too long for an article, I will likely remove the flag soon. Please let me know if you have any other thoughts. John NH (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

There are now 33 links to sub-articles. If there are no objections, I will remove the flag soon.John NH (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:SS. fgnievinski (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)