Talk:Bioecological model

Category

This is not simply a matter of genetics and this category should either be deleted or expanded. Ccolemag7 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ccolemag7, thanks for you work. I have wikified your contribution and added two new categories. Also I have removed the design you made here on the talk page, since the text is part of the article now. -- Mdd (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ccolemag7 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bioecological model/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 14:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Quick fail. I'll finish by tonight. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The main reason for the failure is lack of sources and verification issue. The article has 13 sources from which the content cannot be verified much. One should provide links to either ISBN or any site link where the link is present. The article has many facts unsourced so it qualifies for a quick fail. Other issues include, MoS corrections, c/e, and the topic is presented in a bit confusing manner if seen from readers point of view who knows nothing about the topic. I'm sorry to say but it is a quick fail. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

SpecialUser, we are not familiar with the terminology c/e. Please explain so that we can update our article to achieve good article status. Ccolemag7 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It means general fixes and improvements. There is a big essay here: WP:MoS and there are many subpages there in the link. They'll help. Also have a look at User:TheSpecialUser/Improving articles. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Current good article nomination

The article, as it currently is, will not fulfil the criteria of a good article. I recommend the authors to improve the referencing in the article: many claims are made without references. The article is also very jargon-heavy, which would turn off many readers without prior knowledge of the topic. The article could do with some images as well. Have a look at Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. With some work, this should become a good article. CabbageX (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 17:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for improving the article, I can see you've worked hard on it. It is a good start, but I'm going to fail this GA nom again unfortunately. The concerns brought up in the prior GA review and by other commenters have not fully been addressed. Namely:

• The language is too jargony and difficult to understand for someone who has no special knowledge of the field (our main readership). For example:
  • Based on the interactions of proposed elements of the PPCT model, appropriate statistical analyses of PPCT data would likely include explorations of mediation and moderation effects, as well as multilevel modeling of data to account for the nesting of different components of the model. That should be rewritten into plain English.
  • Define (or better, replace) terms like 'bidirectional influences' and 'situational and proximal causes' in the text.
  • Simplify wording: He focused on predicting a pattern of associations among ecological, genetic, and cognitive variables as a function of proximal processes.
  • Explain what these are in the text, don't just link: "ecological validity and ecological experiments"
• A major concern is that there are still citations needed:
  • There are no citations for the paragraph beginning, The development of ecological systems theory arose because Bronfenbrenner noted a lack of focus.
  • Citation needed for the paragraph about Lewin's life space beginning with the sentence The life space that contains all the events in the past, present...

• Images needed. Perhaps a diagram to illustrate the four ecological systems, or other charts or illustrations to illustrate.

• In general, I think the article needs a major copy edit, rewriting a lot of it so it's more clearly explained and easier for a layperson to understand.

If at any point you're interested in working on the article, whether or not for the purpose of GA status, I'm happy to help however you need. Also let me know if you need any clarification or explanation about anything here or on Wikipedia. Thanks again for improving the article. delldot ∇. 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Relationship to Ecological Systems Theory article

I am undertaking some editing of this article and Ecological Systems Theory article.

As Bronfenbrenner and Bronfrenbrenner & Ceci explicitly state, the bioecological model is an extension of ecological systems theory. This is discussed nicely in this article.

Currently the two articles overlap.

My question is, should they remain two articles or should the Ecological Systems Theory article be consolidated and then refer to this article as the mature form of the work?

(BTW, there is an excellent revision of the article in the Talk section of Ecological Systems Theory that was never incorporated into the published article.)

Alternatively, should the revised Ecological Systems Theory article be drawn on more heavily here? Nancydarling (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I edited the beginning of the ecological systems theory article and am framing it as the broader umbrella theory. The bioecological article is placed as the final refinement of that initial theory.

I am planning on taking out much of the ecological part of this article (micro, macro, etc.) and refer to ecological system theory. That will give more focus in this piece to focus on the person characteristics the latter part of his work focused on. Nancydarling (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I undertook some edits that include a stronger and more accurate intro. I started to eliminate overlap between this article and Ecological Systems Theory by removing a very inaccurate statement of the nested contexts (e.g., microsystem, ecosystem) that was here. This is better explained in the EST article and this article refers there.

I cleaned up some of the historical development system, consolidating the information on Vygotsky, shortening the info on Lewin, and adding Thomas (all are discussed in other published reviews, which are cited).

There is SO MUCH MORE WORK to do on this piece. Published work by Tudge and by myself and Bronfenbrenner's own writing on the development of the theory would add a lot. So would Ceci's obituary. All could be cited ::Nancydarling (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)