Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Attachment theory/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:25, 30 November 2009 [1].

Attachment theory[edit]

Nominator(s): Fainites, User:Jean Mercer
Toolbox

This article was nominated fairly recently in September. It closed after 6 weeks with one support and several reviewers with incomplete reviews. Ealdgyth had done her stuff on links and references. There was also an unstruck image issue. That image has been replaced, (the moose). Two reviewers have now completed their reviews here. I appreciate it is long but fervent copyediting has slimmed it down by about 14 kbs. I believe it now meets the criteria.Fainites barleyscribs 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) not met. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved 2c issues are now listed at the review's talk page to avoid clutter! Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article clearly introduces the reader to a broad topic in an organized and coherent fashion. Any issues I had with it have been resolved. Thanks for your hard work on this Fainites! Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Good alt text is present (thanks), except that alt text is missing for Image:Child development stages.svg. Please fix this by appending "|alt=Alt text" to the second line of Template:Child development diagram. The alt text should describe the whole diagram; please see WP:ALT#Diagrams for guidance. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried adding alt text where you suggest but it doesn'y seem to show up. Is there a problem trying to add alt text to what is a navbox that is already full of ppiped links? Fainites barleyscribs 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition worked for me; I expect it was a caching problem of some sort? Anyway, thanks for doing it. Eubulides (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments will jot notes here. pending a couple of minor tweaks below. Well done.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
any benefit of "proximity" over the plainer "closeness"?
It's just that it's the word that always has been and still is used. I don't think it's too esoteric is it? I could wiktionary it.Fainites barleyscribs 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the benefit and reason for the term is it leaves out psychological closeness and is technically more specific. JoeSmack Talk 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good enough for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note to self, have read down to Significance of attachment patterns - looking good but as I am familiar with jargon I might miss less accessible bits. Too tired to do this justice now. Back tomorrow) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not very keen on this Around 65% of children have a secure classification in the general population, the remaining 35% divided between the insecure classifications. Do you mind if I change it again?Fainites barleyscribs 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fine by me, you're welcome to tweak any prose tweaks I make which you feel change meaning inadvertently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should specify that the AAI is primarily a research tool I think (unless this has changed in the last 10 years (?)). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be used to refer to proposed new classification systems put forward by theorists in the field. - needs a ref methinks..
Done. F.
I'll tweak the AAI bit tonight.Fainites barleyscribs 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • We resolved everything at the last FAC, lets spare my eyes and has anything in the sourcing changed? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one or two have been removed but no new ones have been added other than another ref to Cassidy and Shaver.Fainites barleyscribs 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've already commented in the FAC review of the first nomination, which I supported. This version is much improved. I will soon be adding the Wikilink for Dorothy Burlingham in the text, a page I created a while ago, which someone will do well to expand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've begun a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - you can see extensive commenting on the talk page that i've already done, and Fainites has patiently and diligently addressed them all. This is complex subject that is quite a challenge to get up to FAC, and I think the job is well done. JoeSmack Talk 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my concerns have been resolved. Although the prose is still less than brilliant in places, the article fully meets all of the FA criteria; in particular, it is a stellar work of scholarship, and meets 1(c) by miles. All it requires in my humble opinion is further copy editing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comments—
File:Moose-Imprinting-sr81-15.jpg: Is there any record that "Dr. Alexander Minaev kindly granted permissions to use the photo for any purpose including commercial, provided appropriate attribution"? Shouldn't this be on OTRS?
I've asked the uploader. F.
File:Laughing couple.jpg is no longer available under cc-by-2.0, but cc-by-nc-nd-2.0.
Do I need to change that? F.
I don't think so; just noting it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rest look good (no pun intended). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will review the rest of the article later :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments—
Lead looks good.
In "Attachment": Infants will form attachments to any consistent caregiver who is sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them....The biological mother is the usual principal attachment figure, but the role can be taken by anybody who consistently behaves in a "mothering" way over a period of time. Within attachment theory this means a set of behaviours that involves engaging in lively social interaction with the infant and responding readily to signals and approaches.
In "Attachment patterns": Infants form attachments if there is someone to interact with, even if mistreated.
To me, these statements are at odds with each other. Surely neglect is a form of mistreatment, and mistreatment (usually) implies a lack of sensitivity and responsiveness to the child's needs/attempts at interaction?
Well not necessarily. If a carer responds to an infant an attachment will form even if it's a pretty minimalist inconsistent interaction in the context of overall neglectful care. Might not be a very good attachment though. F.
What do you think of renaming "Attachment behaviours" simply "Behaviours", per WP:MSH, and making "Significance of attachment patterns" a subsection of "Attachment patterns"?
OK. Definitely the second and I'll try the first. F.
In "Attachment patterns": Ainsworth's work in the United States attracted many scholars into the field, inspiring research and challenging the dominance of behaviouralism.. Don't you mean behaviorism?
Yup. Don't know what happened there! F.
Does reference 41 apply to table "Child and caregiver behaviour patterns before the age of 18 months"?
No. The contents of the table are really a summary of the Ainsworth/Main patterns reffed earlier in the paragraph. Does the table need a specific ref? F.
Yep; cite the sources you summarized. If not, how do we know your summary isn't synthesis, not in a good way? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. F.
In "Significance...": Conversely, a child from an abusive relationship... A child born of an abusive relationship? A child abused by its caregiver(s)?
The abusive relationship is the one between adult and child. I'll think how to reword this. F.
Done. F.
  • Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent, will finish reviewing the article today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Developmental psychologists interested in the individual's state of mind with respect to attachment generally explore how attachment functions in relationship dynamics and impacts relationship outcomes. The latter is more stable, while the former fluctuates more. —I cannot parse these two sentences.
The second sentence above is in fact the third of three sentences. I'll try and reword this bit. F.
      • What do you think of placing "Recent developments" within the "History" section, immediately after "Formulation of the theory" and its subsections? This would make for a more logical structure: Early developments → Formulation of the theory → Recent developments → Science behind the theory → Practical applications.
it is more logical but it also means the reader has to go through all the history before coming across the wha's 'appening bit. It's rerally more "recent activity" than developments. Hmmm. F.
      • Still on the subject of structure—can you think of a better title for the "Developments" subsection of "Formulation of the theory"? We have "Recent developments", "Early developments", and "Developments". That's way too much development.
I'll try. Any ideas? F.
      • Do you think you can write a very brief lead for the "Practical applications" section, a sort of preface to its subsections? Something really simple, along the lines of "Attachment theory has found many applications in child care and mental health..." etc.
—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done.Fainites barleyscribs 08:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I do think the restructuring made a world of difference—I hope you agree with me! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Attachment_theory/archive2&oldid=1088824307"