Talk:Family in the United States/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey everybody. I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. I'll start by asking you to remove the construction tag from the top of the article, as articles with this tag are automatically not GAs (due to inherent instability). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is well-done, but it needs some further editing to achieve GA status. I'm putting it on hold to allow contributors time to address my concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• The lead needs to be expanded to match the scope of the article. As is, it is too short and does not adequately overview the topic. See WP:Lead for guidelines. -Have edited, please review and see if the Lead is getting closer to GA criteria.--Red walnut (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's much better in terms of length, but it now reads like the introduction or abstract of a research paper. You should try to maintain an encyclopedic tone. Also, it could use an internal link or two.

 Doing... - close, but not quite. The opening sentence is, IMO, slightly misleading, as that is not a standard definition of "family", and your article gives multiple scenarios that could be considered families.

Fiddled around some more with it, and included that line you liked from the Nuclear section (minus the white stuff..) as well as removed 'we' to make it sound more encyclopedic. Thoughts? --Red walnut (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you don't discuss abuse in the article, that should be removed from the lead. You could discuss different "alternative family forms" briefly instead.

I keep working on trying to make it concise yet informative, and hopefully it is close to being complete. : Done ?

• Editors are generally advised to avoid using the topic of the article in section headings unless absolutely necessary. I would suggest renaming "Contemporary views of the American family" and "Controversy within the American family" to "Contemporary views" and "Controversy" respectively.-Have made changes to the headings as requested.--Red walnut (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, but headings should have only the first word capitalized (unless they're proper nouns).  Done

"Children structures of interest" is kind of an awkward title - any other choices?

I have labeled the section as "Children" for simplicity's sake until I think of something more explanatory, or if other sections about children are added to the current two areas. --Red walnut (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC): Done

• You have a lot of small subsections with very little content. I would suggest either merging some of these together or expanding them.

 Done "summary style"--Red walnut (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• "A nuclear family consist of" - grammar -made change--Red walnut (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• "The nuclear family is vastly evolving into different family structures" - awkward wording, edit for flow and clarity

 Done

• "as marry couples divorce" - "married" or "many" here?

 Done

• "couples divorce due to a rising trend in divorce rates" - couples divorce because of rising divorce rates? Reword for meaning

 Done

• "single-parnet households" -made change--Red walnut (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• Need a period at the end of the paragraph about single parents- made change--Red walnut (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• "Biological parents can be either the mother or father, or termed Guardians for adopted children" - awkward and unclear, please revise

 Done

• Cohabitation is not a proper noun

 Done

• Why are housewives, breadwinners + SAHDs subsections of partners? Why not parents, or a section of their own?

 Done

• "This number increased by at least another 594,000 if we include same sex partners" - need verb tense agreement

 Done

• "Cohabitation lifestyle" -> "The cohabitation lifestyle" or "cohabitation as a lifestyle"

 Done

• Avoid contractions in encyclopedic articles

 Doing... - you missed at least one ("aren't")

All contractions should be removed.--Red walnut (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) : Done

• Some of your terms (long term, stay at home) should have hyphens. See WP:HYPHEN for guidelines

 Done

• Some of your quotes would be better summarized and cited instead of directly quoted

Working on paraphrasing the old quotes instead of just dropping the quotation marks. --Red walnut (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Have reviewed and should be better. : Done

• "New York Times" should be italicizes

 Done

• SAHDs are the male equivalent to housewives, not opposite

 Done

• "Firstborn children are able to live up to their parents' high expectations, they reap precious rewards" - do you mean if they are able?

 Done

• Why is there a section on firstborn and not lastborn?

 Done

• "Firstborn" and "Only child families" need serious editing for grammar and encyclopedic tone

 Doing... - "Only child" still needs some work

: Done?

• "Its particularly hard" -> "It is particularly hard"

 Done

• The "Controversy" section has many grammatical issues and needs copyediting (especially the first two subsections)

 Done

• "Media" needs major copyediting

 Doing... - good start, but still needs some work (look especially at capitalization)

What exactly is copyediting? --Red walnut (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting means checking the section for spelling and grammar, and making changes as appropriate. The section is better now, but could still use some minor copyediting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reworded, fixed punctuation and commas, hopefully it is solid. : Done

• This article is a WP:Orphan, as no other pages link to it. In addition to links out of the article, a good GA has several link in. -Have added links to American family structure to Family and American Family so far. --Red walnut (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, but could use a few more.

Added it to Cohabitation in the United States and Adoption in the United States as well --Red walnut (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) : Done

• A few more things I've noticed: first, why is the word "white" included in the nuclear family section?

Unfortunately, I got caught up in paraphrasing research from the '80s that I let that slip in there. I have removed it now. --Red walnut (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) : Done

• Once "white" is dealt with, I would double that sentence in the lead somewhere : Done
• "adopting families" -> "adoptive families"

Looks like Tony took care of this issue : Done

• Make sure that citations are placed as follows: punctuation, citation, space, next word : Done
• "Less" and "fewer" should not be used interchangeably : Done
• "We" should be avoided in encyclopedic articles

removed all 'we' --Red walnut (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC) : Done

Accuracy and verifiability

• All "citations needed" tags must be addressed before the article can be GA

 Done

• Besides those tagged, citations also needed for:

• Single parent homes are increasing more and more as marry couples divorce due to a rising trend in divorce rates: Done
• The age group for parents ranges from teenage parents to older parents, with teenage pregnancies fluctuating yearly: Done
• Cohabitation lifestyle is becoming more popular in today's generation: Done
• Stay at home dads aren't as popular in American society: Done
• Firstborn children are able to live up to their parents' high expectations, they reap precious rewards: Done
• They often become very skilled at knowing what their parents (and later, teachers and bosses) want them to do, and doing it.To protect against this disaster, many firstborn children set even higher standards for themselves than their parents do, and, as a result, are rarely satisfied. Any success they achieve is not enough: Done
• Children that come from only child families have the stereotype of being spoiled, self-center, and selfish. However, only children seem to do excel higher in school and careers then children with siblings: Done
• The adoption requirements and policies for adopting children has made harder for foster families and potential adoptive families to adopt kids. Before a family can adopt they must go through state, county, and agencies criteria. Adoption agencies criteria express the importance of age of the adoptive parents, as well as the agency's desire for married couples over single adopters. Adoptive parents also have to deal with criteria that is placed by the birth parents of the adopting child: Done
• The male social role is designed to reward masculine men, while the female social role offers its relative advantages only to feminine women- just removed this part entirely : Done
• During the era of the baby boomers, families grew popular in society espicially on television: Done
• The perfect nuclear families that are shown on tv has changed as the years past and have become more realistic with showing single parent families, divorced families, and people that are older and single: Done

• In "Adopted children", the quote provded doesn't really support the assertation that it is harder for children to be adopted from foster care: Done
• About.com is not the greatest source - if you can find another one, use it: Done
• The "bare URL" tag needs to be addressed. See WP:Cite#How

 Done - but also needs to be fixed in external links

• The stereotypes in "Children" are largely original research- found some more evidence that should hopefully support the claims better : Done

• Additional tags regarding citations have been added to the article - please address

 Done - but remove the tag : Done

• I would recommend against placing one citation at the end of the paragraph - other editors may introduce material, making it unclear what the citation applies to. Especially where there are statistics, cite each sentence (or, if necessary, each part thereof) individually.

Could you please provide an example section? We are still new to wiki :] --Red walnut (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Example section:

• Living as unwed partners is also known as cohabitation. The number of heterosexual unmarried couples in the United States has increased tenfold, from about 0.4 million in 1960 to more than five million in 2005. This number would increase by at least another 594,000 if same sex partners were included. Of all unmarried couples, about 1 in 9 (11 percent of all unmarried-partner households) are gay men or lesbians. The cohabitation lifestyle is becoming more popular in today's generation.[11]

Here, I assume that your ref 11 covers the entire italicized section. But since the sentences are not cited individually, an addition of further material complicates matters. Observe:

• Living as unwed partners is also known as cohabitation. The number of heterosexual unmarried couples in the United States has increased tenfold, from about 0.4 million in 1960 to more than five million in 2005. This number would increase by at least another 594,000 if same sex partners were included. Cohabitors represent about x% of American families.[my ref] Of all unmarried couples, about 1 in 9 (11 percent of all unmarried-partner households) are gay men or lesbians. Some suggest that homosexual cohabitors are better parents than heterosexuals.[my ref] More homosexual than heterosexual couples choose cohabitation.[my ref] The cohabitation lifestyle is becoming more popular in today's generation.[11]

Now, the italicized section is referenced, but those with fact tags aren't. This problem is solved by citing sentences like these individually as much as possible, unless it's obvious somehow that they can never be separated.

Got it! I looked through each paragraph and replicated references for anything that could get messed up if a new contributor added information. Should be complete, if not a bit redundant! : Done

• It's good that you're making an effort to reduce the number of direct quotes, but removing the quote marks without changing the words borders on plagiarism. Please paraphrase instead

See above, have changed/paraphrased several sentences to avoid this : Done

• Ref 1 needs to be expanded : Done
• Refs 4 and 27 are the same, refs 17 and 20 are the same

The ref #s have changed as we have been working, could we get an update on what they currently are now?

1+3, 4+5, 6+37, 12+13+14+16, 22+26, 24+25, 32+33+34 are the same now

Will you please explain why the references cannot be duplicates if they came from the same source? For example, do you just want more specific information such as exact page number? --Red walnut (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's fine for references to be the same - however, in this case, they need to be cited slightly differently. A single ref can be cited: <ref>Ref, details</ref>. When the reference is duplicated in the text, however, the first instance is cited: <ref name="example">Ref, details</ref>, and thereafter as <ref name="example"/>. I assumed that since the article had some references in that format, you had added them - sorry, my fault. Hope this explains it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Broad

• Some of those small subsections could be expanded : Done
• "Media" does not mean just TV - families have been portrayed in other media, and it would be useful to discuss these: Done
• There are other possible "controversy" subsections: child abuse, molestation, neglect, abandonment, etc

Due to the time constraints of our course, I do not think we are able at this time to add more sections within the GA timeframe. I definitely think those are areas that should be addressed and hopefully there will be more time (and contributors!) in the future to do so. --Red walnut (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

• The "Children" section presents some stereotypes as fact, without citing a source : Done

Stability

• As noted above, the "under construction" tag makes the article inherently unstable and needs to be removed : Done

Images

• The image needs a caption -caption added today --Red walnut (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• The image has no licensing tag and its copyright status is uncertain -put the photo up for review due to the lack of copyright notice on the website it came from. --Red walnut (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• You could take the image to WP:IMAGEHELP for help in determining the necessary tag

Found a photo with a Creative Commons license so hopefully that should be good to go. : Done

July 25th

Thank you for all of your recommendations, Nikkimaria! Our group will be using this page to 'check off' what we fix according to your list. If you have any other suggestions as we progress please feel free to comment! --Red walnut (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)