Jump to content

Talk:Joint custody (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJoint custody (United States) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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
DateProcessResult
December 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 20, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in some joint custody arrangements, children reside in one house and the parents move in and out from separate residences?

Education assignment

[edit]

Search for references

[edit]

I (along with a few other students) want to improve this article, not only by adding more detailed information to the sections present, but also on the implications (primarily psychological/sociological) to children who are in this situation. Any ideas for different references would be greatly appreciated.

Kgw2 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline for proposed changes

[edit]

Group 11 for Professor Konieczny's Sociology of Marriage tentatively intends on covering the following topics (though this may change as we obtain more research on the topic):

  • Overview:
    • This will be a brief overview of the topic, briefly mentioning some basic facts about joint physical custody and joint legal custody.
    • This section will be primarily developed by Karl.
  • History:
    • This section will cover the basics of how this form of custody came about.
    • Included will be:
      • Important court cases.
      • Important historical changes leading to the current day views and laws on the subject.
    • This section will be primarily developed by Katie.
  • Joint Physical Custody:
    • Discussion of what joint physical custody is (or more importantly, how it differs from joint legal custody).
    • Included will be:
      • Definition of joint physical custody.
      • Explanation of what all it entails (or rather, what it would not entail – for example, joint physical custody specifically deals with housing and care for the child, but does not necessarily deal with ability to tax in certain ways or obtain certain documents about one’s children).
    • This section will be primarily developed by Karl.
  • Joint Legal Custody:
    • Discussion of what joint legal custody is (or more importantly, how it differs from joint physical custody).
    • Included will be:
      • Definition of joint legal custody.
      • Explanation of what all it entails (focus on the fact that having joint legal custody does not mean that the individual has any shared custody rights).
    • This section will be primarily developed by Brian.
  • Impact On Families and Children:
    • This section will cover the basic impact of a situation like this on the family and on the children of the family in particular.
    • Most of this section will take a sociological/psychological approach to the situation and will primarily draw from sociological/psychological articles, though others sources will be used as well.
    • This section will be primarily developed by Julie.

Kgw2 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Brb94 (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references for joint physical custody

[edit]

Kgw2 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


OBJECTION: I'm sorry, but this section -- in fact, this entire entry -- really needs a caution, and it needs to be rewritten. It's way too slanted in favor of joint physical custody when the studies do not necessarily show what this article claims. I see this section in particular as problematic because an insufficient effort has been made to investigate studies that refute claims about the supposedly positive benefits of joint physical custody. There is evidence to indicate that it only really works if the divorce has been more or less amicable in the first place and the parents are more interested in cooperating to make sure the kids aren't damaged than they are in punishing each other for the divorce -- in which case, it's not the joint physical custody that works, it's the parents' cooperation that is the key, which means it may not matter that only one parent has physical custody. There is no mention of criticism that early enthusiasm for joint custody was based on studies that were heavily slanted towards examining only cooperative divorcing couples rather than the entire range of divorcing couples. Since then, there have been studies with less positive findings and several meta-analyses with conclusions that are far less sanguine.
No mention is made of the disadvantages to the children of constantly shuttling between parents' residences. Also, there is no mention here of the fact that the awarding of joint physical custody can reduce the amount of child support and alimony for the parent who is the primary caregiver and primary custodial parent, thus putting a financial burden on that parent (let's face it: women are still the primary caregivers when it comes to child care, and women still get physical custody more often than men do; punishing mothers financially by demanding joint physical custody of children is used by many an ex-husband's attorney as a strategy to reduce child support payments because dad really doesn't want to pay mom the money, period, and never mind that it's really the kids getting the money in order to live). There is also no mention of the harm done by litigating divorces in terms of parents' rights instead of what most benefits the children. Joint custody doesn't inherently encourage parental cooperation; there may, in fact, be more cooperation without joint physical custody, as long as the noncustodial parent feels part of the decisionmaking process:

  • Anja Taanila et al. Effects of Family Interaction on the Child's Behavior In Single-Parent or Reconstructed Families, Family Process (2002) -Vol. 41 Issue 4 557-736

Finally, joint custody doesn't make sense where there has been physical and/or psychological abuse by one parent.
Some of the scholarly works and studies that debunk the current thinking about joint physical custody are quoted on the web pages reached through the following links:

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.html

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/jointcustody.htm

They quote the following studies, among others:

  • Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46
  • Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Tschann, J. M. (1989). Ongoing postdivorce conflict in families contesting custody: Do joint custody and frequent access help? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 576-592
  • Saunders, Daniel G., Ph.D., Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: Legal Trends, Research Findings, and Recommendations, University of Michigan School of Social Work August 1998
  • Holly E. Heard (2007) Fathers, Mothers, and Family Structure: Family Trajectories, Parent Gender, and Adolescent Schooling Journal of Marriage and Family 69 (2), 435-450
  • William Marsiglio, Paul Amato, Randal D Day, Michael E Lamb (2000) Scholarship on Fatherhood in the 1990s and Beyond Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (4), 1173-1191
  • Judith Wallerstein, in Unexpected Legacy (A Twenty-Five Year Landmark Study, Hyperion 2000, p 181-2
  • Brinig, Margaret (2005). Does Parental Autonomy Require Equal Custody at Divorce? The University of Iowa College of Law, University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper Number 05-13 April, 2005
  • David H Demo, Martha J Cox (2000) Families With Young Children: A Review of Research in the 1990s Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (4), 876-895
  • Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992, as quoted in WORKING DOCUMENT, THE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON CHILDREN, A Selected Literature Review. Research and Statistics Division. October 1997, WD1998-2e, UNEDITED. Department of Justice Ministère de la Justice Canada
  • Washington State Parenting Act Study, Report to the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission and Domestic Relations Commission, Diane N. Lye, Ph.D., June, 1999
  • Solomon, Judith and Carol George, The Development of attachment in separated and divorced families: Effects of overnight visitation, parent and couple variables, Attachment & Human Development VOl.1 No. 1, April 1999
  • Solomon, Judith and Carol George (2003), The Effects on Attachment of Overnight Visitation in Divorced and Separated Families: A Longitudinal Follow-Up; see also George, Carol and Judith Solomon. OVERNIGHT VISITS AFFECT BABIES' ATTACHMENT TO SEPARATED OR DIVORCING PARENTS http://www.newswise.com/articles/2003/4/DIVORCE.MLS.html
  • Jennifer McIntosh, "Enduring Conflict in Parental Separation: Pathways of Impact on Child Development, 9 J. of Family Studies 63, April 2003

I could go on. The point: The positive claims made in this Wikipedia entry should be investigated more thoroughly, the entry rewritten to reflect the results of the dissenting studies I've mentioned above, and there should be a notice added to the Wikipedia entry asking for additional assistance in revising this page. Mrtraska (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Brb94 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you guys are finding a lot of reliable sources, that's great. The outline looks good, keep it up! I'd be cautious about the NOLO and divorcelawwinfo.com website, if you want to use them, you should explain why they are reliable (who is the author, is the author/publisher a reliable person or organization?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references for the impact on families and children

[edit]

Jmv31 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informal review

[edit]

I checked out College dating and I noticed that they had an image on their page. I think we should try to find a relevant image for our page as well. It's attention grabbing and I think it would make the page more attractive. Compared to the other groups' pages I think what we have so far is really good. Our outline is great and we already have numerous sources.

Jmv31 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Open relationship page and saw that although they do not have a lot of references yet, they have a bullet list of various interpretations of their key concept, given that it is somewhat ambiguous. Is there any way that we could include something like this for our page as well? I'm thinking important examples throughout history would be a nice touch somewhere near the end of the article.

Kemarcinko (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over Grounds for Divorce and thought that the layout there was fantastic. We can go over this in a little more detail on Mon. but if I can't figure out how to divide the page the way I wanted one other option is simply to do something similar to how they broke down their big sections into sub sections using a slightly smaller font etc. Also, now that we have some great sources we will have to start working on adding them into the actual article! Lastly, I think the section that you will be working on (Katie - History) will probably be the best place to add examples throughout history since we probably will want to start out with important cases etc. that led to the current definition of Joint Custody rather than mention them at the end of the article. Also, in response to your idea Julie, I think a good picture would be a great idea. The only hesitation I had there was that most of the other custody pages tended to have the same "generic" law symbol, but after looking at them again, I think having a different picture would be a good idea. Lastly, one thing I think we should add potentially at the bottom of our page (after eliminating about 90% of the links we have) would be to have links to the several other forms of custody (or we could add them to the custody page). We would have to start a stub article for those, but one of the sources I listed covers about seven different topics that I think would be beneficial to create stubs on and link to (and hopefully people eventually will add to them etc.). Anyhow I think we have a great "game plan" for our page (though hopefully I have some time this weekend to actually get in a 9 hour day into working on it - I have had SO MUCH work to do lately :( haha).

Kgw2 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our contents section seems very limited and we should add more details along with adding more citations. Also, the “see also” section is huge and we should either talk about some of the items or maybe begin to limit this section.

Brb94 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with the "see also" section. It needs an extensive amount of revamping haha!
Kgw2 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for a WP:DYK and front-page exposure

[edit]

Recent edits by Karl brought this article close to WP:DYK threshold, which is 5-fold increase in size (readable prose). Before his edits, I see (using this tool (help) if you are curious) 1911 B (304 words), now 7350 B (1180 words), so you are roughly to 4x, and need just about 2000 bytes or 300 words more (that's less than what most of you write for our blogs), and you'll be very close to getting the 5 extra credit point that this optional assignment can bring. Keep in mind that DYKs need this 5-fold increase within 5 days, and this is day one. So, there is a timer attached to those points ... it would be a shame if the current 4x would go to waste! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job expanding this further; you have a good short at T:TDYK. Two issues to fix: too much bold text (see WP:MOSBOLD), and citation needed tags in the bottom of the article need filling. Let me know if you'll try to nominate the article yourselves (instructions are at the top of T:TDYK) or would my help with it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with bird's nest custody

[edit]

Should Bird's nest custody be merged with Joint custody as the latter appears to be a subset of the former? I have raised this for RFC as this is the subject of an educational assignment, so I thought it would be useful for the students to get consensus in order to help raise the article to GA status (they get credit if they do this I believe). --Deadly∀ssassin 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I would be against merging these two articles. The reason I created the multiple stub/start articles encompassing the different forms of custody was in hopes that with my help and other people's help, they will each grow into a decently large/informative page. That being said, bird's nest custody differs from joint custody due to one main factor (though there are some other smaller factors as well), which is that in bird's nest custody, when a parent has his/her child, he has authority for the duration that he has the child, where that is not the case in joint custody. --Kgw2 (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I debated this for a while after writing this and now I am actually torn. Despite some subtle differences, with the main being the one I stated above, they are very similar, and bird's nest custody is arguably a subsection of joint custody (which would be a bit more encompassing). If anyone else has any ideas on this, please speak up :). --Kgw2 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merger for three reasons, as follows:

What do others think? --ClaretAsh (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the editors of this page may find useful this version of Joint physical custody prior to it being redirected. --ClaretAsh (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if a merger is necessary, and in fact I'd support unredirecting and restoring the old version of joint physical custody. We don't keep split articles only when the parent is too large; we split them to create articles that are notable. Is "Bird's nest custody" notable? I think it is, and as such I see no problem with its having a separate article. I'd suggest that editors may consider using templates such as {{main}}, {{further}} and such for linking between articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After discussing this with the other group members (well 2/3 of the other group members anyhow) we came to the consensus as well that we really do not want to merge them mainly based on the notable fact that was posed above. I was not sure if you had any comments to this ClaretAsh (talk) or any different ideas? Also if anyone else has comments they would like to add please speak up now rather than waiting! --Kgw2 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ClaretAsh that Bird's nest should be a subsection of this article and that bird's nest be redirected here. Given that the rest of this article (e.g. the history) is relevant to that article too it seems to make much more sense. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will the editors of this article please resolve this discussion soon? When I do a GA review, I will not pass the article if the merging proposal is still outstanding. AstroCog (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking this over with the other authors and my professor tomorrow, Deadly∀ssassin and ClaretAsh (talk) have made some valid points that need addressed, and I will post our thoughts as a group tomorrow after meeting with everyone. Thank you all for your input on this matter :)! --Kgw2 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined not to merge, if BNC is a significant phenomenon, as there will be more material available, and there can be a summary section here with a {{Details}} template. If, however, BNC is vanishingly rare, then the coverage here will probably fork the BNC article, and they should be merged. They can, after all, be split again at any time.
On another point the list "Other forms of custody" might be better as a {{Navbox}}. Rich Farmbrough, 09:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The authors of this article all agree that the merger is a better decision at this point. Rich brought up the great point of the fact that if the ideas on this change, it can simply be separated again, but as of now, it really does not have enough sourcing/documentation to necessitate having its own page. Thank you again to everyone who made input on this topic. I will go ahead now and merge this, and if someone could check that I did this appropriately that would be great :). --Kgw2 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems done well to me, through I am still ambivalent whether it should've happened at all. Well, if needed, it can be split off again one day. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to work on before GAN

[edit]

I'm the volunteer editor who will do the GA review for the students working to improve this article. Please keep in mind the good article criteria as you work on it. Right away, the red flag of stability is waving, due to the current discussion about merging. I'd like to see that resolved before GAN. Also, several times in the article, facts are backed up with many citations, something known as citation overkill, which makes it difficult to know what part of the sentence goes with which source. Consider using nested references in a bundle in these cases. Section headings need to be cleaned up to conform to WP:MOS - for example, the "other forms", "see also", and "reference" sections should not be subsections of the "effects" section. Speaking of...that "see also" section is pretty long...I'd say look to paring down to the ones that are most directly related to the subject here. I'll have more add as this article improves. Feel free to contact me on my talk page with questions. FYI, I am not a lawyer or an expert in this subject, so I can't help with the fundamental content. I DO recommend finding an expert, though, who may be able to help. --AstroCog (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the heading should be good to go. I read over the page you had wanted me to read and I think they are done correctly. --Kgw2 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Congratulations to all those who have expanded this article. Thanks for all your hard work. I have a few suggestions for you.

  • The article is overlinked. You should only link the first mention of something which isn't basically common knowledge. Words like "parent" and "child" are linked which really don't need it. And words have been linked many, many times. It makes it hard to read, as you may have noticed.
  • I'm guessing you are from the US. The article needs to have a global focus, not just a US one, as this is an encyclopedia for more people than the US.
  • I'm concerned a bit about the tone. WP is an encyclopedia, not an advice guide for parents. Nor it is an essay for a professor. So things like "advantages" and "disadvantages" are not really appropriate sections. Summarize the research on these topics rather than saying parents may feel this or that. And/or the opinions need to be attributed to whoever made the point. ie Gayle Smith says "x". If there is something definite to say, then the information should be in the "effect on families" section, though probably it should be divided into some subsections as it is very long.
  • Be careful about WP:IRS sources. You've used some very good sources, but some of them aren't so wonderful. For example, About.com isn't a good one, and citing court cases etc is using a primary source which is to be avoided per WP:NOR.

I hope this is helpful... you might want to look at some entries in other encyclopedias on Joint Custody to get some idea of the form, style and content on these things. I suspect you have some in the library or can take a peek at one via googlebooks. --Slp1 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overlinked issue should be taken care of at this point. I eliminated unnecessary links, and limited it to basically first mentions of terms, so it is much more readable now. The global focus I am hoping to clear up this weekend, as my round of midterms just ended this week, so I have not had as much time as I would have liked to be doing research/editing this article. As for the tone, I altered advantages/disadvantages, and proposed it in terms of benefits and criticisms, with a more objective tone (I also made sure other articles did use this terminology, as I did not see many with advantages/disadvantages as you had mentioned). I eliminated the two sources that seemed to be causing issues, and replaced them with noteworthy sources that will not be an issue. Thank you again for the review. --Kgw2 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Here are some suggestions from the peer reviewer tool which could help: Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Now some comments from a human:

  • There was a dead link which I've tagged.
  • You link to Joint legal custody and Joint physical custody which are both included in this article.
  • The article appears to be largely US-centric, what about other jurisdictions?
  • You've got only one subheading in Effect of joint custody, you might consider removing that or making the heading Effect on families
  • The list of references was long, so i've put them into 2 column format.
  • You've got one not closed bracket - [[joint legal custody
  • Otherwise the text looks pretty clear, and definitely looking in decent shape to go to GA Review at some point, but there is a bit of work still needed I think.

Thanks for asking me to review. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey students - I haven't seen much work on this article lately - particularly addressing the points in this peer review. I especially want to see some of the subsections tackled so it's no ungainly in that part of the article. Consider combining the smaller subjects (e.g. Advantages, Disadvantages, etc) into a single paragraph under the larger subheading. That would make this article cleaner and more readable, in my opinion. What about images? What about non-US centric info? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edits to the references as mentioned by multiple reviewers. The adv./disadv. (now benefits/criticisms) has been reworded to be more objective in tone (as this was a mentioned issue) and the sections have been combined to make the subsections fewer in number (great idea there btw it looks much nicer that way!). I was a bit at a loss in terms of what to do for an image, as it is not like, for instance, a person or a think, but rather a concept. I don't know what really would be appropriate in terms of a picture, so I didn't know if you had any further ideas on that or in general what type of picture I should be looking for. I am speaking with the other authors and my professor tomorrow about merging, and we will have a unanimous response to it as of tomorrow (I am still rather torn on the topic as it is a subsection, in a way, but it really has some distinguishing features that set it apart as well, which makes it a difficult thing to do - did you have any opinion one way or the other on that topic?). I will probably not have time until this weekend with my work load to worry about the non-US info, but I have at least found some reliable citations to begin reading this week so that this weekend I can really make some decent headway on that issue. Anyhow, most of the more minor issues seem to have been taken care of, the real last issue (at least in my opinion) is going to be the non-US view of the topic, which should be close to done by the end of the weekend. Thank you for all of your time on helping us with this article, I really appreciate it. --Kgw2 (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good work has been done recently. Issues that remain: 1) MoS/structure issues: WP:LEAD (intro section) needs to be expanded. Perhaps the subsection entitled conclusions should be moved to the lead? Why are there no conclusions for the physical custody, only for legal one? "Discussion of joint custody" should probably be merged into the top of the section, under "Concept of joint custody". "Effect on families" section is has one tiny and one very large paragraph, consider restructuring into two or more less extremely sized paragraphs. "Other forms of custody" has no references. "See also" is still too long. 2) Globalization issues: History section starts with England, then jumps to United States. I'd like to see more on the global aspect: what was the take on it in non-common low countries in the past, what is the relevance of British to US law, and is this a global concept (what about Asia, non-UK Europe, and so on). The article mentions "many states" later (please clarify if we are talking about countries, or US states). If we are discussion only United States, we should consider whether the article should not be renamed to joint custody (United States); then you could split (copy) the non-US parts into a new general joint custody stub/start article for extra credit 3) There are still some places that sound less neutral then they should be. For example, "There are some inherent benefits" - according to whom? Everybody? Or just one source? 4) Consider adding page links to the one or two remaining books which don't have them (example fix). 5) See comments by Rich below 6) Merge discussion needs to be resolved. Can you prove bird's nest is a significant concept (discussed by many sources)? If so, post your argument in the merge discussion above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) The introductory section will still need a bit of adding to it, however, however other issues mentioned under this section have been addressed. 2) It had been shifted to joint custody (United States). 3) I have made some headway here, but these sections still need a bit more further work. 4) I am going to address the two sources that still are having page issues at some point today. 6) It has been successfully (I think) merged as of now. Hopefully once we get the remaining issues noted taken care of this article will be good to go :). --Kgw2 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References review

[edit]

I've added a number of requests for missing data. Some references should link to journals online and such, I've linked one, and will leave the rest to you (for example, Post's article - and the year needs to be clarified from 1988–1990 to one yer, I've yet to see a journal that is published every three years...?). The reference that begins with "In re Marriage of Rose and Richardson..." reads like some weird legalize to me, and it needs to be converted into something more understandable. Not required, but USATODAY should be using cite news, not cite web. Please explain the reliability of "NOLO Law for All" and "parenting247.org". About.com is also problematic for the same reasons (how reliable are those websites)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most reference issues should now be cleared up. --Kgw2 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular about.com article seems ok, but not great. Most of the stuff that I would consider attributing to it is sourceable elsewhere.
  • I noticed a page ref "121-121" - it's fine just to say "121".
  • With plenty of sources available, I'm not sure that some of the books cited are a great choice. Self help books are often not particularly well researched, relying on anecdote rather than research, and sometimes are non-neutral. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm particularly concerned with us making statements like "It appears that joint legal custody is a constant battle, unless parents can openly communication, stay focused on the children, and maintain positive images as human beings." (Apart from the grammar.) Firstly we should not be saying "it appears" or "it seems". Ideally we should be citing reliable sources, based either on research or expert opinion, and I'm not sure we can do this for a such a statement, I'm not even sure what "maintain positive images as human beings" means or is supposed to mean here. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In regards to the first comment, we are going through our sources, and either eliminating older sources, or substantiating them with more reputable sources as needed. As for the second point, as there seemed to be concern for this section, it has been eliminated for the time being as it really was not crucial to the description anyhow. Thank you for your time reviewing this and feel free to post more comments as we are updating the article :)! --Kgw2 (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Joint custody

[edit]

There are only a few things needed for this article to be passed, but time is running out. When all issues are fixed, please note it at the review page. I'd suggest doing it as soon as possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased View of Joint Custody

[edit]

I am concerned that this wiki article does not indicate that most studies about the advantages of joint custody are when both parents are in agreement about the study and the custody. This is biased information surrounding the movement for traditional households. --173.167.21.234 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review that section a bit closer, but as I recall it had been mentioned (though a bit lower in the article) that these results were based on the fact that there was not conflict present. Some studies mentioned explicitly stated that when conflict was present, the positive effect seen in joint custody situations did not occur. Most of the mentions to this, however, were posed in the effects section which is located later, but I will make this more explicit in the advantages section as well. --Kgw2 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the last sentence of Benefits/Criticisms of joint legal custody it actually had already introduced the fact you had mentioned above, which is subsequently elaborated upon in the section "Effects on families." --Kgw2 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Joint custody (United States)

[edit]

I think the move was warranted, and done correctly, but I'd like to see joint custody at least stubbed using the non-US general information from this article. This would count as extra credit editing for the purpose of this educational assignment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joint custody (United States) → Joint custody – Unnecessary disambiguation; base name redirects here. If there's a problem with the scope, that should be addressed through editing rather than through unusual redirection maps. --Powers T 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Okay, this is complicating matters. While I think that the parent category "Joint custody" should not redirect to a country-specific article (it should be its own page), I support the decision to narrow the focus of the project to US only examples. The complete all-inclusive world view of this topic would a very long, cumbersome page (can still attempt at "joint custody"). On a related note, I can not pass the DYK if the article is not "stable" (constantly redirected page name). --Froggerlaura (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have responded on DYK page, some paraphrasing issues.Froggerlaura (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Did you know nominations/Joint custody

[edit]

I think scrapping my section completely is a little extreme and a waste of time. I've gone through several times and rewritten the section. I also read the article on close paraphrasing and I've cited everything so I'm not exactly sure where else the problem lies. --Jmv31 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see the section rescued (rewritten) rather then scrapped. As I noted on your talk (and repeated several times in class), changing synonyms is not sufficient, you need to change the entire sentence structure (best accomplished by merging, splitting, and simply summarizing in as many of your own words as possible the key information). You have done a good job rewriting the sentence cited above ([1]).
But the next sentence cited to the source could be changed further changed.:
Article: "In addition, a study has found that adolescents who are involved in a joint custody arrangement scored higher with regards to behavioral, emotional, and academic functioning when compared to children in sole custody arrangements"
Source: "in one large study, adolescents in joint custody had significantly better scores on an index of emotional, behavioral, and academic functioning than did adolescents in father custody and slightly better scores than did adolescents in mother custody"
Here you could change the sentence structure - it contains a lot of jargon that should probably stay, but in addition to the other synonyms (which you changed), we should do the same to the structure.
Next:
Article: "Children that have easygoing, adaptable temperaments are much more likely to benefit from the transitions that they will inevitably experience from a joint custody arrangement."
Source: "Children with easygoing, adaptable temperaments are more likely to deal well with the multiple and repeated transitions entailed by joint custody than are children who are less adaptable"
Here we have another sentence that retains a very similar structure. While the expansion at the end helps, the first part is the same, and even some synonyms have not been changed.
Now, compare to:
Article: "Furthermore, infants and preschoolers are not likely to benefit from joint custody arrangements due to the importance of a consistent routine and the security of a primary attachment figure at that age"
Source: "Although to our knowledge there is no research on joint physical custody of very young children (i.e., infants and preschoolers), true joint custody is not likely to be a good option for them. Young children thrive when they have the security of a primary attachment figure and consistent routines—outcomes that are typically best promoted with a sole custody arrangement plus visitation."
That is a good rewrite, jargon is kept, but sentence structure is mostly unrecognizable (as I mentioned, splitting/merging/summarizing helps). Please ensure that all of your added content is rewritten in that fashion. I know you can do it, as the last cited sentence, for example, existed in this correct form from your initial edit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job with correcting the paraphrasing! I think the DYK is good to go. One minor note, the "Benefits and criticisms of joint physical custody" is attributed to the Smith and Abrahms source (#14) but the cite number directs to the Watnick source (#6). I assume it's supposed to be Smith as the info is covered in that source, so I will change it. For further development (GA only, not DYK), the book cites should direct to a single or at most 3 page range. One cite has an almost 50 page range to parse through to get to the information. For sources where multiple pages are used, cite the source as "Author, date, title, page number" then include a full source reference with all parameters in a separate bibliography section. Google Books pages can also be linked directly to the cited page (it makes review a lot easier :). Much improved. Froggerlaura (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hook is in Queue 2. Should post on November 19 at 7PM EST. Froggerlaura (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joint custody (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 00:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • Many instances remain of citation overkill. Once there are more than two citations on a single sentence, it becomes really difficult to figure out which reference goes with what part of the sentence.
  • Last sentence in the lead seems unnecessary - makes me think of those intro paragraphs from school papers. If you want to bring items from the article into the lead, give brief details that summarize the important content from those sections. I try to have at least one lead sentence per section.
  • For now I just eliminated the sentence. I will add a bit more to the introduction over the week to make it a bit more comprehensive based on your ideas you mentioned. --Kgw2 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four links in article go to disambiguation pages. Click on disambig links in the toolbox in the upper right to find them. Figure out where the links should actually go to and fix 'em.
  • Go through the article with eye to eliminating unnecessary adverbs, such as 'very'. For example, in the "History..." section, is there a meaningful difference between 'very little' and just 'little'? Check over the article to make sure these instances are not used too often. AstroCog (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are Gayle Smith and Sally Abrahms? When you saying something like "According to John Doe..." you need to explain why his opinion/explanation is relevant. So, "According to John Doe, a recognized expert on family law at Great Big University Law School..." would be the format. AstroCog (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check over the article for ways to improve the wikilinks. I see several instances where the wikilink is somewhat trivial, e.g. marriage. The first section is well-linked, but subsequent sections have a noticeably lower density of wikilinks. Go over the article with an eye to linking terms and words that a general reader is likely to want to know more about. If you link it, make sure it is linked in the first use the word or term in the article, and then not again after that. Words and terms that a general reader is not likely to need more information on probably don't need a link, but I'll leave that as a judgement call for the editors here. AstroCog (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's all I have for this article in terms of prose and MOS.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Plenty of refs and they all seems to be cited properly.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This will take me longer. I put out a call on WikiProject Law for an expert to take a look at this for accuracy and scope.
  • It appears to be focused to me. I don't see any major diversions in the article.
  • Are there any high-profile or major cases that established the joint custody laws, which can be discussed in the history section? The whole article seems quite abstract to me, without any concrete examples or situations. If any high-profile/major cases were covered in reliable sources, I think they should be added.
  • There were not any cases mentioned in pretty much everything we read. I could see if I could find out some information regarding cases though if you think the article needs it. --Kgw2 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Will come back to this. Looks good to me.
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    I realize that students are working on this and there may have been many edits recently. It looks relatively stable now, but let's see what happens this week.
  • Looks relatively stable now.
  1. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Well, no images at all. However, I'm not sure what images are appropriate for this topic.
  2. Overall: Article will be put on hold until remaining concerns are addressed. Many improvements made which addressed concerns. The article looks much better now.
    Pass/Fail:


This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comprehensiveness, I think we might have discussed it briefly in class, but are there any sources on history of this concept in US - when was it introduced first, where there any landmark cases, and such? Also, a brief paragraph on differences between joint custody in US and the rest of the world would be useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A week has passed without a progress report here. I'd very much like to see an update from the students; please note that no activity for a week is grounds to close the review due to no activity of the editors. Since this article is so close to a GA, it would be a shame if it was to fail due to such a technicality and poor communication. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it went by so long without an update. After Thanksgiving I went to work on this and my mom apparently forgot to pay the internet bill, so we lost TV/Phone/Internet for about 4 or so days so I was not able to log on to do much of anything (apparently you can do nothing from an iPhone in terms of editing). This week I intend to look more closely at the history and at the issue of a major court case (I had no luck looking for the past hour now). Other than that the issue of bundling is still up, but I simply do not know how to do it, so that will be a task I reserve for Friday when I have some time at home to look at how other articles did it. I also have to fix the linking, which will tentatively be updated tonight. --Kgw2 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished adjusting the references from the "citation overkill" problem. Each sentence will be more clear now that there will be, at most, two citations per sentence. --Brb94 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joint custody (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy Section

[edit]

I suggest removing the Advocacy section, which does little more than list advocacy groups. See Wikipedia is not a Directory Arllaw (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Arllaw: First of all, thank you for helping improve this article. That is great. With unclear definitions, identical content in multiple places, outdated information, some important aspects missing and a sub-optimal page structure, it was badly needed, and together I am sure we can make it a lot better. It is a complex topic though that requires careful wording, since joint custody can be either legal or physical, and the exact use varies by jurisdiction. I do think it is natural to mention advocacy work for joint custody, but I agree that it is strange to only have a table there. It is my intention to expand the section, but I backed off a little yesterday to let you finish your editing. Note that many other Wikipedia pages have lists of organizations, such as for example (picked randomly) Professional fraternities and sororities, Organisation of sport in Australia, List of women's organizations and United States State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Martinogk (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is considerably better now than it was even a few days ago, so thanks for your efforts. The problems with including a list of advocacy organizations here is (a) the list is duplicative of an independent page, (b) the list is at best peripheral to the topic, (c) the list will suffer from link rot -- why have that happen in two places instead of one, and (d) it's not what Wikipedia is for. You are noting the existence of list pages -- one exists for these organizations -- and that's a separate issue from including a list in this article. I am not debating the question of a stand-alone list page, just expressing my position on the duplicative insertion here.
If an organization is making a substantive contribution to the study or understanding of joint custody, that contribution can be included in the article itself, and if they are not there is no point to including them here in a list. Arllaw (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I have no objections to creating a new separate page for the organizations, and moving the table to that new page. Martinogk (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I thought there was already such a page. But wow, thanks for a constructive discussion of an editing issue -- sometimes we seem to have too few of those here, even though we're all here for the greater good. Arllaw (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joint_custody_(United_States)&oldid=1210918442"