Jump to content

Talk:Maternal sensitivity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMaternal sensitivity was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that children of maternally sensitive mothers scored higher in math and phoneme knowledge than those who had a history of lower maternal sensitivity?

DYK Nomination

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal sensitivity

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that children of maternally sensitive mothers scored higher in math and phoneme knowledge than those who had a history of lower maternal sensitivity?

Created/expanded by Carina1205 (talk), R-Bot6 (talk), 1StrangerSC (talk). Nominated by Carina1205 (talk) at 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, I changed the hook to something different which contained the words "maternal sensitivity". Also, I am not sure what you mean by the article is not supported by inline citations? Everything in the article comes from a somewhere else which is sourced at the end of the last sentence from that source. As for the PMID's, I added the codes for the ones I found. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carina1205 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--

Hook still not properly formatted. Article still not fully supported by sources. The unpublished dissertation is not an acceptable source in a medical article. There are a number of raw URLs in the citation list that need to go. There is at least one source that appears to be a primary source medical study where the section pretty much exclusively talks about it, not how others responded to it. No PMID in the citation. Appears to be other possible WP:MEDRS sourcing issues. This is not ready. When ALL these concerns are addressed, please comment HERE AND on my talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure how the hook is still improperly formatted after it's recent revisions. Citations have been created/modified where requested. Improper referencing issue has been addressed. R-Bot6 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing now appears to be reliable and, based on my understanding of WP:MEDRS, compliant. (I have asked a medical person to verify.) Hook is properly formatted. Hooked fact is found in the article and supported by a source. I think it is good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Maternal sensitivity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) 21:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is generally well done, but there are a few problems.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    Images of mothers and babies interacting with each other are freely available at Commons:Category:Mothers and children, and one or more suitable images should be added  Fixed
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few specific problems:

  • The WP:LEAD is insufficient. In particular, it should explain why this is an important concept. It's okay to have the list of methods of measuring it, but there should be more information than just that.
There are items in the "Description" section that seem to belong in the lead --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 04:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence:
    "If the caregiver assigns the wrong internal state to the baby's behaviour, the comment about the current activity does is not insufficiently associated with a past event, the comment deters the infant from proceeding with the current activity, and/or if the comment is unclear, it is deemed a in-appropriate mind-related comment and correlates to low mind-mindedness."
    does not seem to be grammatically correct. (See the problem at "the current activity does is not insufficiently…")
  • At http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/measures/content/ainsworth_scales.html (on Ainsworth's scales), who is "EW", and why should we care whether EW says that Ainsworth's scales are suitable for wide use? Is EW an expert?
  • I think it might be better to organize the sections so that the measurement systems are placed later, and the why-it-matters sections are earlier. With the exception of psych students, most readers won't really care about the measurement systems.

As always, I'd be happy to hear your perspective, especially if you think I'm wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU for your feedback. I have made some changes. I have to look into the reference, it seems that the information on that website comes form an actual journal from a university, but I will do my best to find a more appropriate reference for that information. Sorry for the late reply, it is exam time right about now, so I am not on Wikipedia much. All of our changes will be made by the 10th. Thank you for your patience and help. Carina1205 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A more reliable reference has been substituted. Please take a look at the article and let us know if further editing is required. Thank you! R-Bot6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you for the response!
Pass the exams first. WP:There is no deadline on Wikipedia. I'll be here next week, if that's better for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: all three semicolons in the article text are incorrect. You should use a plain colon (punctuation) to introduce lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading through for prose issues, and I fixed a few things that don't "count" for GA and that you really couldn't be expected to know anyway. I'm only about halfway through, but here's my current list for you, most of which are small issues:

  • "The concept of maternal sensitivity and its definition needs more clarity for future research and practice in the area"
    • I think I'd drop this. It's kind of trite, since every researcher always believes that his or her area deserves more research.
  • We need to figure out whether or not "attachment theory" is a proper noun, and capitalize it (or not) consistently according to that decision.
  • "There are four important aspects of maternal sensitivity."
    • I think that list would be better handled as a plain sentence. If you prefer to keep it as a list, it should be a bulleted list rather than a numbered one per WP:EMBED.
  • "The understanding and use of the concept of maternal sensitivity is crucial to maximize the potential of a developing infant."
    • This seems factually wrong to me. It seems like a mother could be completely ignorant of "the concept of maternal sensitivity" and still manage to be sensitive and to maximize the baby's development. After all, nobody "used the concept of maternal sensitivity" before it was invented in 1978, so you're pretty much saying that before 1978, no baby's development was maximized. Also, I don't think the source directly supports this. I'd remove this sentence entirely, rather than trying to salvage it.
  • "others rely on the ability of the maternal figure to divide attention"
    • This is a confusing way of saying this. It sounds like the mother is trying to get the baby to multi-task. Can you find a simpler way to say that other studies look at the babies' behaviors when the mother is busy?
  • The use of numbers is inconsistent. Either it's always "three" or it's always "3", but not one this time and the other the next time. You have three options: always spell out numbers, always use numerals, or pick a cutoff point and spell out the ones under it and use numerals for the ones over it. (Most newspapers use the last, with numbers under 10 or 12 being spelled out, but bigger numbers being printed in numerals.) You can pick any system, but a well-written article is going to use only one system.

The major issue is still the inadequate summary in the lead. Think of the lead as your elevator speech to high school students: you want to cover the high points in non-technical language, with the hope that they'll want to learn more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Those infants whose mothers are ignorant of the signs and signals from their children…"
    • Is this really "ignorance" of the signs (the mother is in another room?), or is it the mother choosing to ignore the signs? Isn't "signs and signals" redundant? Do you think an example might be illustrative for most readers?
  • "Maternal sensitivity even in the first few months of mother child relationships are an important factor to health in childhood year,"
    • I think this reference to "childhood year" is probably a mistake.
  • "assessed groups of mother–child interactions and categorized them in one of two groups"
    • Is this really a case of assessing "groups of interactions", or did they maybe assess (just) "interactions"?

This isn't really related to the GA review, but the English Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article for negative discipline. I'd been hoping for a page that differentiated it from negative punishment and negative reinforcement. Am I right to assume that negative discipline is related to positive discipline, i.e., the idea that discipline ought to be reasonably pleasant instruction and gentle correction rather than bad behavior (screaming/hitting/insulting)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your assumptions is correct. I have a few days before the next wave of exams starts so I have made some new changes, and also tried to play around with the lead. I am not really sure what else to add/take out of the lead, I basically gave a brief description of every subcategory mentioned in the article. I left he measurements and scales to the end of the lead, as many people will not be interested in that, and put the more interesting facts at the beginning. I also mentioned about teen mothers. Any more suggestions?? Thank you for all your help and time by the way. Carina1205 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is better. I split it into two paragraphs, which I hope you'll agree is all right.
I'm seeing some mixed signs for English variety (WP:ENGVAR). Are you intending to write in British, American, Canadian, Commonwealth (etc) English? It can be any, but it should only be one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay. I was distracted by a dispute at another article.
I have identified two points of very different type:
  • Writing style: There's a lot of "A study by Nobody Really Cares found that..." kind of language. You might look at WP:MEDMOS about presenting single, unreplicated studies vs generally accepted facts. The one at the very end that lists the authors' initials rather than their names is probably the worst.
  • Incompleteness: I find myself wondering who is likely to be sensitive, or how one could become sensitive. Wikipedia doesn't give advice, but it does describe facts (so "To become more sensitive, you need to get a good night's sleep" is bad, but "Mothers who get enough sleep are more sensitive" is good). Also, I wondered whether there was a relationship between working out of the home/away from the baby and a lack of sensitivity. It seemed to me that the mother is not always the primary caregiver. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a minor grammatical error and repaired some links that led to redirected pages. I think this is a good article at this point. It's not perfect, but I think it certainly deserves will deserve GA status with a little work. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 03:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that the more I look at this article, the more work I see to be done. But it's do-able. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 04:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions: I am not happy with either of the captions on either of the images. The first simply says "Mother and child", what is the purpose of this image? Is "Mother and Child" the name of the piece? What is happenning? The image seems to be there for it's own sake. Only slightly better is the caption on the second image "Doing the best she can" The mother or the infant? And what is it she's doing? Playing? Communicating? I understand that it is difficult to find photos for this subject matter, and I think the photos are not too bad, but the captions under them should at least be interesting or informative. Perhaps a fact or two under each image would be useful. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 04:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Failing per the above. Wizardman 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parental sensitivity

[edit]

Any chance of broadening the scope to include fathers? General Vicinity (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maternal_sensitivity&oldid=1205429047"