Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study 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. Review: June 17, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 19 September 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Larry Hockett ( talk · contribs) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I look forward to reviewing this nomination and will leave some feedback in the next few days. Thanks to the nominator for the work that has already gone into this entry. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to take this long, but I'm beginning this review. First, a few easy things to get out of the way. The article is stable, and it is illustrated with one image that appears to have the appropriate fair use information. On a quick read, the article seems neutral. I will look at the quality of the writing and the references as I work through a section-by-section review. If I see very minor issues, I may just fix them myself. If I make any suggestions that fall outside of the GA criteria, I will try to mark them as such.
I'm going to pause here for tonight. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm back. I'm sorry that I'm moving so slowly. Continuing with the next section...
Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Next I'll go through and do some checking of the references. One thing I'm wondering about: I notice that most of the references seem to come from sources that are connected to the administration or funding of the study (Yale, Princeton, RWJF, NICHD, journal articles written by the PIs). Has the study received substantial coverage in independent sources? This is one of the harder aspects of writing standalone WP articles about research studies. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 04:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Larry Hockett, Tommyren, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, the most recent edits here and at the article were over four weeks ago on May 11. Can we get it moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I am terribly sorry for the delay, Tommyren. The good news is that I have looked over the article and I think we are almost there. I went through each section and made some light edits for clarity. I appreciate the attention to my feedback.
To me, only two issues remain, both in the Survey administration section.
1) The data collection at one year sticks out because it's a little vague. Can anything else be said about the one year data collection to flesh it out like the other data collection times are?
2) I think the wording is still a little unclear on the Year 5 interview. When we say that there were "surveys on kindergarten teachers", who was filling out the surveys? At three years, it looks like researchers went to the child care environment to make observations, but I don't think it was in survey form, so a bit more explanation would help.
I have been through the article to check the sources and to look for copyvio/close paraphrasing issues, so I look forward to passing this quickly if we can resolve the two items above. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Since we are so close, and so you don't have to guess at what I am looking for, I added some Year 5 info. I will pass this shortly. Thank you for hanging in there during this protracted review! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The nominator made a few edits to enhance the clarity of the writing during the review process. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Nice job. The lead is appropriate for a relatively short article. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Good work - this is sourced well. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No issues turned up with Earwig's tool or with insertion of random article text into Google. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This entry makes good use of the reliable sources that discuss it. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Single image (logo) with appropriate non-free use rationale. Image size has been reduced by a bot. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Passing this. Thanks to the nominator for a great deal of patience during this process. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi FamiliesData98, you've made a good deal of changes to this article today, including leaving whole sections unreferenced. Do you have any connection to this study? Further, can you please ensure that all statements in the article remain cited to reliable sources? Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. — Collin t c 13:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study 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. Review: June 17, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 19 September 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Larry Hockett ( talk · contribs) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I look forward to reviewing this nomination and will leave some feedback in the next few days. Thanks to the nominator for the work that has already gone into this entry. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to take this long, but I'm beginning this review. First, a few easy things to get out of the way. The article is stable, and it is illustrated with one image that appears to have the appropriate fair use information. On a quick read, the article seems neutral. I will look at the quality of the writing and the references as I work through a section-by-section review. If I see very minor issues, I may just fix them myself. If I make any suggestions that fall outside of the GA criteria, I will try to mark them as such.
I'm going to pause here for tonight. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 05:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm back. I'm sorry that I'm moving so slowly. Continuing with the next section...
Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Next I'll go through and do some checking of the references. One thing I'm wondering about: I notice that most of the references seem to come from sources that are connected to the administration or funding of the study (Yale, Princeton, RWJF, NICHD, journal articles written by the PIs). Has the study received substantial coverage in independent sources? This is one of the harder aspects of writing standalone WP articles about research studies. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 04:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Larry Hockett, Tommyren, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, the most recent edits here and at the article were over four weeks ago on May 11. Can we get it moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I am terribly sorry for the delay, Tommyren. The good news is that I have looked over the article and I think we are almost there. I went through each section and made some light edits for clarity. I appreciate the attention to my feedback.
To me, only two issues remain, both in the Survey administration section.
1) The data collection at one year sticks out because it's a little vague. Can anything else be said about the one year data collection to flesh it out like the other data collection times are?
2) I think the wording is still a little unclear on the Year 5 interview. When we say that there were "surveys on kindergarten teachers", who was filling out the surveys? At three years, it looks like researchers went to the child care environment to make observations, but I don't think it was in survey form, so a bit more explanation would help.
I have been through the article to check the sources and to look for copyvio/close paraphrasing issues, so I look forward to passing this quickly if we can resolve the two items above. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Since we are so close, and so you don't have to guess at what I am looking for, I added some Year 5 info. I will pass this shortly. Thank you for hanging in there during this protracted review! Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The nominator made a few edits to enhance the clarity of the writing during the review process. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Nice job. The lead is appropriate for a relatively short article. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Good work - this is sourced well. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No issues turned up with Earwig's tool or with insertion of random article text into Google. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This entry makes good use of the reliable sources that discuss it. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Single image (logo) with appropriate non-free use rationale. Image size has been reduced by a bot. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Passing this. Thanks to the nominator for a great deal of patience during this process. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi FamiliesData98, you've made a good deal of changes to this article today, including leaving whole sections unreferenced. Do you have any connection to this study? Further, can you please ensure that all statements in the article remain cited to reliable sources? Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. — Collin t c 13:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)