Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Joint custody

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Joint custody (United States)

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that unless the child's parents are often involved in intense conflict, or one of the parents is abusive or mentally ill, the child tends to fare better in a joint custody arrangement?

Created/expanded by Kgw2 (talk), Jmv31 (talk), Brb94 (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 02:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually began 5x expansion on October 15 not 17, but still within 5 day limit. Article prose has been 5x expanded. Checked hook citation and the most used citations with duplication detector and found no instances of copyright violation. Closely paraphrased segments are mostly legal terms or phrases. QPQ review not needed. Inline citations adequate. Good start.

Problems:

  • Needs citation sentences need citations before I can pass for DYK.
  • POV/wording issues, especially the "Joint legal custody conclusions section." I'm not sure exactly what the passage is trying to convey. Viewpoint is entirely US centric (passable for DYK but will have to be changed for GA status).
  • Red links (especially multiple red links) should be removed from all paragraphs.
  • Terms should only be wiki-linked once per section and it is not necessary to link "parents" multiple times in article.
  • Bare URLs in the references section need to be formatted.
  • The sources for the hook are weak (WebMD is borderline, USA Today is better) and the actual study from the Journal of Family Psychology would be much stronger cite (abstract here [1]).
  • Hook is long and a little clunky. Froggerlaura (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Might I suggest:

ALT1: "... that children fare better in a joint custody arrangement provided their parents are not mentally ill, abusive or intensely argumentative?

  • One red linked term is okay in the article, but repeated in every section or the same term redlinked 3-4 times in the same section is too much. The term in question, "joint legal custody," does not even need to be linked because the topic is described in great detail in the Joint custody article. Joint physical custody also redirects to the joint custody article (no need to link). Given the recent DYK climate, even minor formatting and referencing issues are now a big deal. Froggerlaura (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I have addressed most issues posed. First off, I really like the alternate hook, besides sounding less clunky (as I think you put it), it also sounds a bit more interesting as well! I have overhauled some sections that reviewers had mentioned may have issues with them, refined the sources quite a bit, fixed over-linking, and I added the source you had recommended (GREAT SOURCE BY THE WAY!). Let me know if there are any other concerns, and I will fix them immediately :). Thank you again for taking the time to review this article, your time is greatly appreciated! --Kgw2 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's still a hold. The article was moved from Joint custody to Joint custody (United States) recently, which was contested on the talk page. DYK cannot be passed until these issues are resolved.
Other issues: The initial sections are appropriately paraphrased, but the "impact on families" section has close paraphrasing to the sources. All of the sentences in this section are closely paraphrased. Here is an example:
  • Article: "Research has repeatedly shown that there are two major predictors for positive adjustment and psychological well-being for children after divorce; first and foremost the parenting and relationships that they experience and secondly the economic stability of their homes."
  • Source: "Rather research repeatedly shows that the best predictors of positive adjustment and psychological well-being for children after divorce have to do first and foremost with the parenting and relationships they experience and secondly with the economic stability of their homes following divorce."
  • Could reword as (believe in helping instead of just pointing things out :), " The most important factor influencing a child's well-being and adjustment after divorce is exposure to positive parenting and relationships, followed closely by family economic stability."
  • A few sources like WebMD are not encyclopedic (not sure if peer reviewed or vetted), but most text is cited to reputable sources. Should be good to go once a few paraphrasing issues are fixed and the article is move-stable. Froggerlaura (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I will speak with the author of that section immediately, it is UNACCEPTABLE to have close paraphrasing under any circumstances, and I am sorry that you saw any instance of that in this article. I will personally go through this line by line after it has been updated before mentioning this on your wall so we do not waste you time like that again. Again, that is unacceptable and will be taken care of immediately. Additionally, I will make the changes my professor noted on the talk page as to a general page noting facts from the article that relate on a global level, that way the issue of it redirecting directly to a US perspective will not be an issue as well. Thanks for all of your input. --Kgw2 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Kgw2, I like your attitude of taking command of the situation. I do not have the time right now to review this article, though I wish you the best of luck in rectifying the close paraphrasing concerns. I've unfortunately had to fail because of close paraphrasing issues the two earlier DYK nominations for this class: Family honor and Grounds for divorce.

    Feel free to read the two DYK nominations and my closing statements to anticipate possible errors in this article. Cunard (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Good suggestions from Cunard. The two primary reasons this nom may fail are close paraphrasing (the above sentence has not been fixed- inserting a verbatim phrase from the source three times in the sentence does not fix paraphrasing issues) and sources not supporting the information ("failed verification"). I will give the article a run through in the next few days, so try to get things shaped up. Froggerlaura (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am just going to do what I did with my section of this article and, rather than try and go through each of the sources and check sentence by sentence, I will probably just scrap this section so to speak and rewrite it from the sources that are listed, that way there is no chance there is close paraphrasing, since if I write it from scratch this should not be an issue. I should have read over the sources more carefully earlier on to ensure that none of the authors had this section closely paraphrased. After I finish my midterm tomorrow I will put a few hours into making this section look really good and flow better. It will be done before the 10th, which is when the discussion message on whether or not the move was warranted can be removed. --Kgw2 (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a technical note that some comments to this discussion are at Talk:Joint_custody_(United_States)#Template:Did_you_know_nominations.2FJoint_custody and are not transcluded into this review page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing issues have been fixed in the section referred to above. I spotchecked the beginning, middle and end of the article and could find no instances of copyvio or blatant close paraphrasing. A few sentences have borderline close paraphrasing issues due to the need to incorporate legal jargon. The sources support the conclusions in the article. The move debate has been closed (no consensus), and the article is now move stable. ALT 1 is the preferred hook. For reference, I approved this version of the article [2]. Froggerlaura (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

These hooks seem blatantly obvious. Anything more interesting? PumpkinSky talk 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions? Froggerlaura (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Potentially if we don't like Alt. 1, we could do something with "Many U.S. states recognize two forms of joint custody, which include joint physical custody, and joint legal custody." I don't know making this into a hook would be any more interesting though, but I am not great at coming up with hooks unfortunately haha. --Kgw2 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that in some joint custody arrangements, children reside in one house and the parents move in and out from separate residences? Froggerlaura (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh I did not even think of using bird's nest custody, as I keep forgetting that we merged the two articles due to it being a subgroup of joint custody! Great idea. --Kgw2 (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's go with ALT2. Froggerlaura (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Joint_custody&oldid=1019633084"