Talk:Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Lead section

In the third sentence, I think the lay reader could use a wikilink to explain oversample. I would suggest a piped link to Oversampling and undersampling in data analysis.

Done Tommyren (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"children became 22 years old" - This may just reflect regional differences in English usage, but I'm wondering if it would sound more natural as "children turned 22 years old".

Done Tommyren (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, don't link to the United States or other major countries, per MOS:OL.

Done Tommyren (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling

"The study design called for an over-sample of births to unmarried couples." I would be a little more specific about why it called for that. I would use oversample without a hyphen like you did in the lead.

Done Tommyren (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause here for tonight. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Research questions and topics

Is there any reliably sourced explanation for why the researchers focused on these issues?

Done Tommyren (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There really aren't any research questions listed in this section.

Done I just deleted the expression "research questions." Tommyren (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I'm sorry that I'm moving so slowly. Continuing with the next section...

Survey components

Under the Year 3 information, "a visit to where the child lives" - easier to say "a visit to the child's home"?

"the non-parental caretaker completed a survey" = If I'm looking at the study documentation correctly here, this only applied to situations where a non-parent had custody of the child. I think we should be specific that this wasn't just any non-parental caretaker.

Done There appears to be a little confusion between the non-parental primary caregiver at home (stepmom, grandparent, etc) and the caretaker (kindergarten teacher, professional babysitter) at the non-familial child care setting. Hopefully my edits made it clear. Tommyren (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the kinder teachers at Year 5 is a little confusing. As a reader, I would wonder why they were asking kindergarten teachers about non-parental child care. Or were they asking the caretakers about the child's teachers?

Done Tommyren (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Study findings

"unmarried parents' socioeconomic background presents numerous challenges regarding career opportunities ..." - This sounds a little awkward to me. How about this? "Unmarried parents face numerous challenges with career opportunities ..."

Done Tommyren (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"While researchers and policymakers have relied on many findings from the FFCWS, the project is not without limitations." - All studies or projects have limitations, and the first part of the sentence feels unnecessary. Just get right to it: "The project has several limitations ..." or "The study's limitations include ..."

Done Tommyren (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's a list of some relatively independent sources. I'll take a deeper look at them once I have time.

https://www.fragilefamilieschallenge.org/

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.839.3681&rep=rep1&type=pdf Tommyren (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Here are the sources that I used that are arguably not connected to the administration or funding of the study.

Schwartz (2020) on why an oversample of unmarried couples was used.

McKay (2019) on constructed variables in the study. He's part of the Fragile Families Challenge, but the Fragile Families Challenge to me seems a largely separate project from the original FFCWS, and McKay is not employed at Princeton or Columbia.

Wagmiller (2010) on the value of holding baseline interviews in hospitals.

Kiernan (2014) on the value of following fathers over time

I also included a few other sources from the Fragile Families Challenge, which are authored by Princeton scholars, sometimes including McLanahan. Tommyren (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

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)[reply]

I am so sorry! This completely fell off my radar. By this weekend I hope to look over the changes and see what else needs to be done. Thanks for the ping! Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to make any changes necessary. Tommyren (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update

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?

Done Tommyren (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]