Notes archived, below ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 08:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The table below shows how the text in the Personal relationship skills article specifically adheres to all Wikipedia policies.
Please add any relevant policies which should also be followed in this article, below.
Any further review input will help, please add comments if more detail is required for any of the policy adherence notes below, or any policies which have been missed.
All feedback gratefully received, thanks. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 08:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Policies adhered to in this article:
WP:HOWTO
WP:VER
WP:NPOV
WP:N
WP:NEO
WP:SYN
WP:ADVERT
WP:ESSAY
WP:OPINION
WP:ORIG
WP:LISTPURP
WP:ENC
WP:MOS
WP:NOTPAPER
WP:CITE
WP:LEAD MOS:LAYOUT
.
The table below shows how the article conforms to each of the policies, click on the "see here" link for the proof of policy adherence and usually a place to add your own comments on how the policy guidelines are met fully in the article.
The lead section was initially deficient, and was enhanced following advice from Sionk.
PRS Not neologism, an apposite term
[edit]Google searches show that the "Personal Relationship Skills" term is well established for the meaning in the head of the article, and is not a neologism - see the analysis below.
Evidence for "Personal relationship skills" notability
[edit]This is a review of the closely related terms giving the evidence of the precise taxonomy and nomenclature in this specialist psychology field.
The google search for "Personal relationship skills" stays firmly on topic - skills to be used by couples themselves - whereas other related terms have the meanings below:
- "Interpersonal skills" - these are work-related management skills - click for evidence >> Interpersonal skills
- "Couple skills" - these are skills for counsellors - click for evidence >> Couple skills -
- "Intimate relationship skills" - not notable, just 1 book uses the term, in 2012, - click for evidence >> Intimate relationship skills
- "Personal relationship skills" term is notable and not a neologism - click for evidence >> Personal relationship skills
Wikiquote uses the term - Wikiquote:Personal relationship
Google search links are shown above.
PRS List is in secondary sources
[edit]This article lists the universal themes from these relationship books, all the skills in this list appearing in all of the books. Therefore following the WP:LISTPURP wikipedia policy.
A neutral tone is presented throughout the article, with no advertising tone, balanced statements are used about the article's skills subject.
The article includes a "criticism" section. This gives statements and attribution to those who hold opinions which oppose those from the article's main sources - that personal relationship skills can be categorised and learnt.
There is no original thought in the article.
There are references to notable sources for all of the statements made in the article.
With a reference for each sentence, this article is not in the nature of an essay.
There are no original opinions in the article, notable referenced sources are linked to each sentence which appears to have an opinion.
Therefore the article conforms to these policies, see links - WP:ORIG WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION
Opinion policy adherence - link to "help the reader" policy
Secondary sources are used to show the people and organisations holding the opinions described in the article. The opinion sources are often provided with quotes, following this policy: "The main point is to help the reader and other editors." ~ policy source: help the reader
[SECTION REMOVED - this article Talk page isn't the place to advise editors on general Wikipedia policies - instead see menu to left of page] Sionk (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Policy notes added above. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 11:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Policy notes archived, following this guideline ==> "not edit or delete", "most editors prefer archiving" ==> I have moved the erased comments to ==> /Archive 2. I hope this helps, ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 08:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note there are a range of exceptions to the "not edit or delete" advice, and they include 'off-topic' material. There is no benefit to pasting extensive general Wikipedia guidance on article Talk pages. It is, by and large, already available at Help:Getting started, for example. But by all means, if you find it useful, why not paste the content onto your User page for your future reference? Sionk (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for the suggestion, I have put this article's policy-adherence notes on my user page >> here <<. That guideline is a long way from becoming a policy as it appears ambiguous to me and not very clear in its erudition of the guideline. From the 15 policies I knew about, I had missed the WP:LEAD policy, thank you for alerting me to that policy. I see that the policy states that a "disambiguation" link is common before the Lead section. Would this be an appropriate "disambiguation" link at the article head...
The article is not a "howto" guide. There is no guide-like tone in any paragraph. All statements encompass universal themes, there are no verbs which are instructional. The style adheres strictly to simple, broad, statements of the encyclopedic facts.
For "how-to" guides on this subject, see [Wikihow:Maintaining-Relationships].
Talk page, archived discussion on MOS:LAYOUT
Is there anything remaining now which still needs to be wikified? Or can the tag be removed from the header? ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to Sionk for cleanup and removing the final warning tag so the article is now clean and is agreed to fully meet Wikipedia standards. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 12:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion the issue is no longer so great as to warrant an obtrusive clean-up tag. It's much improved! Sionk (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the expert help ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 13:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the AfC reviewer that the topic is notable. However, I worry that the author has created something more akin to a WikiProject Portal than an encyclopedic article. The article needs to describe the topic, rather than provide profound quotes and links to somewhere else. At the moment it doesn't describe the topic and doesn't summarise the topic in the lead paragraph. There are various navigational templates scattered throughout the article which I think should either be placed at the bottom of the page, or removed altogether. Some editors may consider the article to be irreparable at the moment! Sionk (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I will move the templates within the article to add them to the "Articles related to Personal relationship skills" (The collapsed section in the "See also" section). Work has started on repairing and wikification. The list format I was following was like other articles, for example: - List of battleships of Germany and Parenting. Could someone please give more specific pointers on which parts of the article need work? - The initial list table is provided so that each skill can be annotated with references - this is in order to avoid any appearance of the article as an essay. Should that initial table be deleted? ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 22:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Believe me, I'm no expert in the subject so I can't advise on the content. However, I'd advise to start with the first section, currently called 'Personal relationship skills list'. There's no need to create an list/index to the article because Wikipedia's clever software does this automatically (as you can see already at the top left). Instead, I'd suggest you use this first section to give a sourced overview of the topic. For example, I think its important to know where you obtained this list of skills and why children need different skills etc.
- With Wikipedia, articles each need a lead paragraph which summarises briefly the topic. Presumably that can folow once you (or someone else) has added substantive content. Sionk (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the expert help - I will work at addressing each point
- Children's skills - I'll work on a paragraph summarising their different needs.
- where this list comes from - a syntopical reading and distillation of the sources, some are here, the list appears in several of the books. Therefore the article is valid under the list policy. In some cases the list-term used in the source differs from the article's term for that skill. In these cases the source's term for that skill is included in the article's synopsis section for that skill; but only where that alternate name for the skill is notable in its own right, for example, see >> mentalisation, here <<. This approach is explained much more clearly than I can in the syntopical approach chapter of Encyclopedia Britannica's "Introduction and Syntopical Guide" (Adler & Hutchins (Editors in chief), Gateway to the Great books, Introduction & Syntopical Guide, Encyclopedia Britannica (1963), p. 109). I see that parts of the syntopical approach are expounded in this article and this article, I see Hutchins' principles are still the core curriculum in Chicago and Santa Fe.
- Substantive content - most articles start with a History section, please give feedback on this draft section.
- Lead section - I have expanded the Lead section, I have about 6 sources to add to fully-source that lead section. After I have pinned down the page numbers and added those; is that text sufficient to remove the "Lead section" warning tag at the head of the article? Or is there more work to do? (besides the 6 sources) ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 23:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks for removing the Lead section warning tag. Does anyone have any feedback on the draft I have done for the suggested "sourced overview" which was requested above. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 08:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- History section draft and overview is now ready to be added - it has been reviewed and edited by other editors. If there are no objections I will move it to the main article next week. click here >> DRAFT LINK <<.
- This forewarning is to reduce the likelihood of edit-warring on the main-page article. Many thanks for the help with this section's draft so far. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 08:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome to move it inside the article! One comment though, I would appreciate if you put the references immediately behind the text and not grouped at the end. So it is clear which statement comes from which source. Lova Falk talk 08:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have done several edits to move references from end-of-paragraph to end-of-sentence, the final draft ready for main-space can be reviewed... >> click here <<. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 12:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
