Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Attachment theory/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:51, 13 October 2009 [1].

Attachment theory

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fainites, Jean Mercer
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article. It has undergone a comprehensive peer review by Delldot and a subsequent check-up. It is a huge subject but I hope this article conveys the essentials. I am aware it is somewhat long - but it's not alone in that. Fainites barleyscribs 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to a co-nom to include Jean Mercer.Fainites barleyscribs 20:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I've just seen the bit that says "do not edit above here". Sorry.Fainites barleyscribs 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Piaget. Will do alt text. Fainites barleyscribs 07:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Alt text.Fainites barleyscribs 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll have a lot to say about this article, but would like to start with some initial impressions. First, the coverage of the ideas of proponents is impressive. The prose is a bit puffy in many places -- a copy-edit with the aim of tightening it would benefit the article. Some important things are missing, for example the Strange Situation Protocol, the predominant test of attachment in young children, is mentioned but not described, although it is extensively discussed in the companion article Attachment in children. More importantly, the article does not pay sufficient attention to the empirical data concerning the validity of the theory -- it is discussed only in a cursory way. Also, the shift in the nature-vs-nurture debate over the past two decades has given rise to a great deal of interest in the biology of attachment, which is treated very incoherently in the article. In fact, the historical section only comes down to the "1980s on". Finally (for now), let me point you to a lengthy new review by Marco del Giudice that just appeared (with commentary) in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, and can be downloaded in PDF form here. Looie496 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with your comments in turn; firstly thanks for the kind words. Secondly - I will add a brief description of the SSP. Thirdly, I'm not clear quite what is wanted on empirical data. There's masses of it which is why I went for the Rutter quote that the tenets have braodly been supported by empirical research. Do you want an over view of the types of research? Fourthly, I will add a section on biology but I'm a bit twitchy about getting into neuroscience because it's all so new and untested.Fainites barleyscribs 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I feel that "tenets are broadly supported" is not enough info for an article like this. The really important tenets (as I see it) are that (1) attachment in infants is primarily determined by the behavior of caregivers, and (2) attachment during infancy has consequences for personality that extend into adult life. These are both generally supported by the existing data, but remain controversial. Another key point is that attachment is measured in different ways at different points in life, so there is a question of whether the same entity is being measured by all of them. Here the data are limited and not all that consistent, as I see it. I agree that you shouldn't get into neuroscience. Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Measurement of attachment is a whole 'nother issue. I started adding to an article on that at Attachment measures that previously just outlined the SSP and the AAI but it needs alot of work. I'll try and add a synopsis of the measurement issues.Fainites barleyscribs 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief description of the SSP, added some material on biology and amalgamated it with what there was in a new section and moved the passage on effects of insecure classificationas on children to a more prominent position under Attachment patterns. Will look again tomorrow.Fainites barleyscribs 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "significance" section to deal with consequences of attachment patterns and beefed up the material on that and on the SSP and difficulties of measurement.Fainites barleyscribs 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also added a brief passage on the adaptive changes in attachment insecurity patterns in middle childhood and some more on long term effects.Fainites barleyscribs 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The test is that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I think the picture fulfils this criteria, but the article could survive quite happily without it if necessary. Pity though.Fainites barleyscribs 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the image meets NFCC #8, but we do need to have the source and copyright holder. Without that information, we can't include it, no matter what the decision is on NFCC #8. Awadewit (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has this image been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source and copyright holder have still not been added. Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no response from the uploader and although the image is easily available on the web there's no clue as to the copyright holder. There are even videos on YouTube of KL and his geese. I have an alternative image from commons of an elk I can use for now until I can track down the necessary details - which I can probably do if I get a moment to get to a decent library some time. Pity.Fainites barleyscribs 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The captions for the various images are uninspiring. Not only that but they cover rather the same as the Alternative text does, something which is discouraged if I'm not mistaken. Captions such as "Ready to explore" are actually un-encyclopaedic. At the moment the simplicity and lack of care on captions is discouraging further reading the article. Which is a real shame, because it looks as if it tackles the subject in real depth and with quality writing. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions gratefully received.Fainites barleyscribs 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. My first suggestion is to cut down from the two pictures currently in the lead to just one. Preferably a picture of a family, something could be said of how attachment will develop probably first between parents (as pictured) or similar. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll try that Eskimo family in the lead. I've had a go at the other captions too.Fainites barleyscribs 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly improved. I may have a few more issues (pending a thorough read of the article that time at the moment doesn't allow for), but my issue of captions is resolved. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Fainites barleyscribs 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Measures of attachment: I just want to point out that the weakness of the Del Giudice article is the citation of so many different measures for school-age children. There is no dominant measurement method for that age group, so any discussion that depends on events during that period will be quite tricky to assess. In addition, a question here is, "historically speaking, what exactly is attachment theory"? At what point did Bowlby's theory end-- or has it ended? It might be wise to state limiting dates for the subject matter covered here-- then perhaps have a section for updates as they come along. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I amalgamated history and criticism and ended up with sections marked 70s and 80s. Controversies came and went. Currently attachment theory survives. Probably because it's adaptable.Fainites barleyscribs 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Current ref 4 (Schaffer) needs page numbers done

  • Likewise current ref 34 (Ainsworth...)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 35 (Ainsworth...)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 44 (Goldberg...)(now 46)gone - replaced with new section
  • Likewise current ref 60 (Fonagy...)refers to whole book
  • Likewise current ref 75 (Suttie...)refers to whole book
  • Likewise current ref 78 (Fildes...)refers to whole book
  • Current ref 84 (Spitz...) is lacking publisher and other bibliographic details.done
  • Current refs 93, 98, 99, 100, 101, 107 (Bowlby...) is lacking a page number changed from cite to ref except for current 101 - done
  • Likewise current ref 104 (Tinbergen...)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 116 (Freud...)refers to whole book
  • LIkewise curent ref 122 (Craik....)changed from cite to ref
  • Likewise current ref 123 (Johnson-Laird...)done
  • Likewise current ref 141 (Harris...)done
  • Likewise current ref 142 (Pinker...)done
  • Likewise current ref 143 (Kagan...)done
  • Likewise current ref 145 (Schaffer...)done
  • Likewise current ref 159 (Sable...)referencing whole book as an example
  • Likewise current ref 161 (johnson...)referencing whole book as an example
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there was me thinking I'd done page numbers. I'll strike them as I do them OK? Fainites barleyscribs 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just put a little done after them when you've done them so I can strike. You actually did well, with the number of refs you have, you can expect a few glitches just because we're all human. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now I look at it there is a category error with some of these. For example where Bowlby read and used someone else's work the reference should be to where Bowlby or a secondary source says he did, not to what he read. That should be in a bibliography or refs. I'll sort this tomorrow.Fainites barleyscribs 22:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support

It has been many years since I bought and read Bowlby's Attachment and Loss trilogy (and then half-read the control system book referenced in Loss), so I'm delighted to see such a comprehensive article on Attachment Theory. I do have a few concerns though.

  • You are unlikely to find a more sympathetic reviewer than I for such a topic, but even I found the article difficult to read from start to finish. You might consider reducing its length.
  • I felt that the first third (up to the end of section 4) was very well written and comprehensible, even though it used the technical terms of the field, so were sections 6 and 8. However, I tuned out a little in Section 5 (Attachment in Adults), Section 7 (Biology of Attachment) and Section 9 (Practical Applications). I will leave the authors to decide if these sections need reworking or reduction. This is about all the time I have. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I think Bowlby's 1951 WHO book was sold in the UK and the British Commonwealth as Child Care and the Growth of Love. Or maybe it was a popular spin-off of the WHO book. You might want to mention it in the references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed! I agree it's long. I keep trying to reduce it but the damn thing keeps expanding. The attachment in adults section may reflect my own complete lack of interest in that topic. Anyway - I will look again with fresh eyes. You are right about Child Car and the Growth of Love in that there was a spin off for public consumption.Fainites barleyscribs 07:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome. One approach to reducing the text would be to create a section, "Biological foundations, extensions, and practical applications," in which you could summarize in three or four paragraphs the contents of section 5, 7 and 9, and provide links to main articles. You would then have four sections of well-written but technical material, the reader would then get a breather with the history section, and the article would conclude with this new section. Such a change, in my view, would not make the article less comprehensive. (Just a thought.)
A couple of other things came to mind as I was reading the article. Do you really want to use the word "dummies" to describe Harry Harlow's mothers? I vaguely remember the "felt" and "wire-mesh" mothers. I wonder if the more explicit description might be more informative to the reader. Also, on the nexus between modern psychoanalysis and attachment theory, I (like many) have wondered what similarities there might between Heinz Kohut's maternal (mirroring) self-object and Bowlby's attachment figure (caregiver), and between Kohut's "transformation of narcissism" and Bowlby (healthy) separation from the mother. A few minutes ago, I Googled the two and a 2005 paper abstract of a study of seven papers: “Selfobject” Needs in Kohut's Self Psychology: Links With Attachment, Self-Cohesion, Affect Regulation, and Adjustment, showed up. Also showing up was, Peter Fonagy's book, where he (explicitly) talks about this: Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis. I wonder if you think a sentence or two about this might be worthy of inclusion. (I'm guessing this is how the article attained its current heft!  :)) You don't have to agree to any of this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Harlow actually talks about "surrogate mothers" and "mother surrogates" so I've put that in instead. Another kilobyte. I'll read up a bit on the psychoanalysis angle again to see if there's any way of encapsulating it - unless you can think of something pithy? The article does deal with Fonagy a bit (in developments somewhere I think) with mentalization providing a sort of bridge.Fainites barleyscribs 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support - In general, this looks like a thorough and well-written article. It is taking me several days to thoroughly review the article, though. I will weigh in further when I have finished my review. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not be able to finish my review as I have a herniated disk and can't easily sit at my computer. The article is sourced to sources of the highest caliber and all images except the non-free image pass inspection (see above). I, too, think the article could be reduced in size a bit by reducing some repetition of topics - this is what I was working on suggesting, but I cannot finish that now. At the sentence level, I think the prose is good. I did some copyediting as I was reading and the "puffiness" in the writing, while there, is not serious and is very difficult to remove (I've left some examples at the article talk page). I should say that I am not an expert in this field at all and broadly skeptical of it, so I appreciated when the article explained the competing theories and mentioned when theories were not fully supported by evidence. There were a few places that I thought this could have been done more, but I can't go into this now. Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful views, pointers and copy-edits so far Awadewit. I've had a go at puffiness, as have some other helpful editors. Now down to 121 kb instead of 126 overall. You just concentrate on getting better.Fainites barleyscribs 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Fainites, I feel the article is too long, and there are problems with the writing -- and those issues are connected, in that a good tightening would go a long way to resolving the length issues. Just looking at the lead -- too many words; first paragraph: "needs a secure relationship to" is poor, as is "was originated by." You say Bowlby was ostracized but you don't say why. Some sentences read as though they come from a social work department trying to justify its own existence, and it's not clear what they really mean e.g., "Attachment concepts have been incorporated into existing therapeutic interventions and used to found attachment-based interventions. There are current efforts to evaluate a number of interventions and treatment approaches based on applications of attachment theory. Attachment theory concepts have also been utilised in the formulation of various social and child-care policies."

    I would copy edit it, but I'm worried I'd remove key terms that I don't understand the importance of, and the citation templates would make copy editing quite difficult. Ideally, someone knowledgeable on the subject needs to go through the article and remove every word, sentence, and paragraph that doesn't have a clear function within the text. If you'd remove the citation templates and insert short refs instead (<ref>Smith 2009, p. 1.</ref>), it would make editing for flow a lot easier. I'd also try to keep technical terms to a minimum, partly for the reader, but also partly for the writer, because an over-use of technical terms can serve to obscure that the text is less meaningful than the author believes.

    The writing apart, my memory of this research is that infants become attached to any primary caregiver, not only to a sensitive or adult one, as the lead says, though it's been a very long time since I read any Bowlby so I could be completely wrong. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SV. Dealing with the points one at a time 1) the article is being copy edited as we speak. The lead has aready been copy-edited and simplified by two editors in the course of this FAC. If you're concerned about copy-editing some meaning away, could you make some copy-editing suggestions here so I have a better idea of what you mean? I think on the concepts bit I could just remove the middle sentence which would be a start. (I've just managed to remove a kilobyte by removing extraneous words.)2) Sorry but I don't understand what you mean about the refs. I have used short refs for where I am referring to books and papers more than once. 3) yes the attachment system is robust but for attachment at least some response is required. I'll see if I can word it better.Fainites barleyscribs 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About 2, did you know they just added a feature to Template:reflist that lets you put the whole ref inside the template, just leaving the little <ref name="blah"/> in the body? I just learned this and about died of happiness. delldot ∇. 06:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that delldot.Fainites barleyscribs 15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Hi there, i'm giving the article a pour through. I'll leave comments as they come. JoeSmack Talk 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Need refs in the opening few sentences. I'm not going to take your word on the official definition of attachment theory without it. Put some in the ainsworth-third-paragraph in the lead too.
  • "Theorists extended attachment theory to adults." in the lead. If you can't tell me who the theorists are in the lead (and i suspect you don't want to overwhelm people) then you need to remove the sentence, or just say, 'which was later extended to adult attachment refrefrefref'.
  • Pick three or four sentences in the last lead paragraph and toss or move the rest. Like people have said, this is a wordy article. The lead should focus the topic, not broaden it. Also the last two sentences of the lead I don't believe without a reference. (I bet you can see i'm an empiricist by now, huh.)
There's nothing in the lead that isn't referenced in the article. I can easily reference it - but does everything in the lead (a summary) need to be referenced?
Not everything, but if you say something definitive it should be clear who defined it. A definition of attachment theory counts. Mentioning a paragon in the field like Ainsworth for the first time - ref that sucker. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done some reffs. Not too many though.Fainites barleyscribs 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reason is inherent in the theory which proposes that the need for safety and protection, paramount in infancy and childhood, is the basis of the bond." - That sentence needs to be more clear. The theory of attachment espouses the reason behind such bonds is the need for safety and protection, especially important in infancy and childhood. Something like that. Also you can't give the definition of attachment without a reference. Also you need to explain what/who is an attachment figure. I know that is a primary caregiver, but other editors might not.
It is referenced. No.10. Have reworded and added "caregiver".
Is it a quote? If so put quotes around it. If it can be changed around for gosh sakes do it, because the first 10 words are a trainwreck. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Its now ref no. 13.Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost from the first, many children have more than one figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour." What is attachment behavior? It looks like you wait until the next subsection to explain it, but you use the term here. I'm seeing the use of figure here now instead of attachment figure or primary caregiver or parental caregiver. Carer? Is there going to be consistency throughout?
OK. Have reworded some caregivers/attachment figures, but they are not always the same thing! As for explaining "behaviours" - I need to explain attachment and attachment behaviours as it is a behavioural system. One has to come first! I thought it might get a little messy if I started explaining behaviours in the middle of explaining attachment. Do you see the problem? I'll try a few things and see how it looks.
I know, but you start to ask me (the reader) to keep a LOT in my head, and when stuff switches around it just gets jumbly. If you start talking about attachment behaviors before I know what they are it'll alienate me. Just sayin'. You'll find a way. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added the briefest description of early attachment behaviours possible.Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of the "Attachment" section should probably be two. The later part, which is where you are explaining rapprochement i believe (in fact, why don't you just call it that?), should have it's own section and be spelled out simply, perhaps with an example. Even an illustration would be kickass, cause it is really important to grok for attachment theory.
Done - but which bit do you mean by the rapprochement bit?Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current 2nd/3rd paragraph in 'Attachment' is a description of rapprochement. At least I was always taught that term for it, secure/insecure base, the start of attachment patterns et. al. JoeSmack Talk 16:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a psychoanalysis thing really. Mahler.Fainites barleyscribs 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth paragraph can be shorter. Like: babies form attachments with sensitive primary caregivers, which is usually the mother (ref). It actually can be anyone who acts in a sensitive mothering way, but it is usually mom. Research shows it is the quality over the quantity of time spent with the child that is most important (ref). Done.
Done (ish).Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clear-cut attachment develops in the third phase, between the ages of six months to two years." Um, suddenly we're talking about phases? You don't mention one and two directly (you don't say phase one is this, phase two is this). It may be helpful to subsection this or illustrate a timeline with a graphic or table or something.
Done.Fainites barleyscribs 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Tenants" subsection is overwhelming, but the topics are obviously important. Just having a list isn't the best solution though. Some can be just mentioned (i.e. robustness of development) and/or wikilinked to their own article (i.e. adaptiveness and critical period) as opposed to bullet-pointing. Some should be moved all together (internal working model is probably better for the sig of attachment or adult attachment sections). Some of it is just too indepth for a general article on attachment honestly, and should be in a subarticle on a branch of the topic (i.e. monotropy).
Hmmm. Tricky. Some people think monotropy is the big thing and there's a lot of misinformation out there about ATheory. I'll have a think about this.Fainites barleyscribs 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just how unhappy are you with the tenets section? The thing is, attachment theory is at once both simpler and more complicated than many think and a lot of work went into trying to set out clearly what it's basic tenets were and the extent to which they have been supported or modified where that is known. I really don't want to make the tenets section any more general or lose any clarity there.Fainites barleyscribs 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried turning the tenets section into an ordinary section here. What do you think? Fainites barleyscribs 21:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced list with more conventionally writen section.Fainites barleyscribs 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i'm going to stop right there for now. I don't mean to be carping or picky, i'm just a thorough guy. JoeSmack Talk 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get onto it - although I should say, having refs in the lead is a bit of a controversial topic. I can easily put them in - but someone else will probably want them out! Fainites barleyscribs 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I never like saying something with weight without having a supportive ref. Especially with psych stuff. JoeSmack Talk 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just recently told to take refs out of the lead in a GA nom. The rationale was that the lead should be a summary, so the info should be ref'd within the article. If there's something in the lead that's not in the body that's a problem. delldot ∇. 01:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says? I think it should be a summary too, but if you can, why not ref it? The numbers are distracting or some such? JoeSmack Talk 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia said to me before citations in the lead on quotes, hard data, or anything surprising or likely to be challenged.. That was in relation to attachment therapy being responsible for the deaths of 6 children.Fainites barleyscribs 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess put me in the surprised/challenging category. ;) JoeSmack Talk 16:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) I just want to say, you're doing a fine job on this FAC - I appreciate your dedication, diligence and most of all patience. Psych articles are among the hardest to push through to GA/FA. Cheers. JoeSmack Talk 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Psych articles can be a bit in the "nailing a jelly to the ceiling" category. Fainites barleyscribs 18:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - According to MoS - Section headings, the title of the article should not be repeated in the section headings as the section headings should be unique. Thus to conform, the section heading "Attachment theory" should be changed, as the whole article entitled Attachment theory. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the MOS says should preferably be unique within a page but it's probably best to change it. Thanks.Fainites barleyscribs 08:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
Issues resolved, Ben MacDui 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is too long - especially paragraph 4.
The only bit that can be sensibly cut is the section on criticism but the the criticisms can't be easily summarised in one brief sentence. What would you suggest? Fainites barleyscribs 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it down just to mention there is criticism from a variety of disciplines. The various criticisms over the years have been built into the articles.Fainites barleyscribs 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attachment
"Within attachment theory, attachment means a bond or tie between an individual and an attachment figure (usually a caregiver). I do not believe the second italics is merited for attachment figure.
DoneFainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenets
"The human evolution" - surely no need for the "the".
" the environment of early adaptation" - of the child or the species? I think you mean the latter.
" Experience as essential factor in attachment:" Better as "an essential factor"? Ditto " Social interactions as cause of attachment:"
" they do so in ways shaped by relationships, not by individual experiences." On a first read, this made no sense to me. I think it may be better as "not by the individual child's experiences."
Done.Fainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes in attachment
"Young children's attachment representations are typically assessed in relation to particular figures, as it appears there are limitations in their thinking limiting their ability to integrate relationship experiences into a single general model." Clumsy duplicate use of "limit"
"During middle childhood, some children may begin to develop a generally consistent representation of attachment relationships, although this may not occur until adolescence." I don't know what this means.
"Relationships formed with peers influence the acquisition of social skills, intellectual development and the formation of social identity. Classification of children's peer status (popular, neglected or rejected) has been found to predict subsequent adjustment; however, as with attachment to parental figures, subsequent experiences may well alter the course of development. " If, in general, "the evidence suggests peers do not become attachment figures", why are these sentences relevant?
Its a different point. Peers as attachment figures as opposed to attachment status making a difference to peer relationships. I've put it in a separate paragraph. Rest done.Fainites barleyscribs 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attachment patterns
Where is "the Ganda" (poss Canada, Uganda…)
Old name for part of Uganda. Uganda will be fine though.Fainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
Re alt text:
General comment: we can't know the adults are parents/ a mother/ a father
The picture description says they're parents.Fainites barleyscribs 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Young couple - how can we see it's a park? The dominant feature of the image - the woman's hair - is not mentioned.
"Road to Catastrophe" should be in italics, not quotes.
Khmer boy - we can see he is of Asiatic origin, but we can't know he is Khmer.
The picture description says they're Khmer.Fainites barleyscribs 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALT being relatively new I can't be certain about this, but my understanding is that the idea is describe only what is seen, not to interpret it and add facts from the description. Ben MacDui 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DoneFainites barleyscribs 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done alt texts Fainites barleyscribs 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long article and I have run out of steam. I'll try and conclude soon. Ben MacDui 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Correction - this is a very long article. Here are a few more comments;[reply]

When I started re-reading at the Attachment patterns section my immediate impression was that it contained material already mentioned above. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well there's attachment as such and then within that, different patterns of attachment. Is that what you meant?Fainites barleyscribs 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Robert Hinde expressed concern with the use of the word "attachment" to imply that it was an intervening variable or a hypothesised internal mechanism rather than a data term...." You may be unsurprised to hear that I am not a psychologist. I did my best, but I could not grasp the meaning of this paragraph and Mr Hinde's doubtless important insights.
OK. Will reword.Fainites barleyscribs 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Fainites barleyscribs 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clinical practice in children
Although attachment theory has become a major scientific theory of socioemotional development with one of the broadest, deepest research lines in modern psychology, attachment theory has, until recently, been less clinically applied.." This may mean that it has been less rigorously applied or perhaps applied less often in clinics, or both. I wasn't sure.
OK. It means they haven't used it. I'll reword.Fainites barley Done.Fainites barleyscribs 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)scribs 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impression - there is no question you get full marks for comprehensiveness. My main query is simply that after two goes, I still haven't finished reading it - I skipped a chunk of the formulation section. Neither brevity nor holding my interest are requirements for an FA, but I can't support an article I have not even read all the way through. If I have not replied by Saturday, feel free to badger me. Ben MacDui 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Fainites barleyscribs 21:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for dealing with the above. Final comments - trivialities:

The link to behaviourism is in italics - I don't know why.
You could link to the wikipedia article on Homeostasis rather than the wiktionary definition.
Unless it has become very commonly used in the English-speaking world, amae should probably be italicised. Ben MacDui 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Fainites barleyscribs 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address my comment above about the fundamental MoS heading violation. It is important. According to MoS - Section headings, the title of the article should not be repeated in the section headings as the section headings should be unique. Thus to conform, the section heading "Attachment theory" should be changed, as the whole article entitled Attachment theory. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed some 14 hours ago and I replied to your first mention of it above.Fainites barleyscribs 21:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could not tell, in all the comments. Thank you. That is an improvement. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have anything to link "internal working model" to in the lead? It is a specific idea that is a common theme in psychodynamic psychotherapy.
Unfortunately not. I've tried this before and all that comes up is the attachment pages or engineering stuff and a few weird and wonderful ideas on working memory. It probably is worth it's own article someday.Fainites barleyscribs 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Internal working model" could be linked to the brief article on Kenneth Craik, to whom Bowlby attributed the idea. Jean Mercer (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which then leads to...oh dear - Mental model needs a bit of a spit'n'boot polish...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted.Fainites barleyscribs 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Attachment_theory/archive1&oldid=1138455137"