Wikipedia:Peer review/Helicopter parent/archive1
I'm not looking so much for a peer review, as so much as a shave and a hair cut. Is everything listed in here encyclopedic in nature? Any legit reason people would complain if this was centred out as in the press? -- Zanimum 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it needs to be made clear in the article when the origin of the term "Helicopter parent" is being discussed, and the origins of the actual phenomenon itself. Also, I don't understand the reason for the subheading explanations? Is this referring to explaining the rise of the phenomenon itself? The article needs a lot more inline citations. Otherwise it could easily be accused of POV problems, or original research. The term, and the phenomenon, are only discussed in an American context. Is this because it's American only, or is the article not comprehensive? - Shudda talk 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good points. I'll start research the term's usage and origins. -- Zanimum 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)