Talk:Joint attention/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canoe1967 (talk · contribs) 06:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Looks fine. The lead may be a liitle long. You may consider moving some of the more detailed information in the lead to lower sections to further improve it.

Dubious tag removed

Anyone who has seen a child interact with an adult doesn't proof that the sky is blue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with article - it was not given a proper GA review

• I have replaced the dubious tag. This uncited statement says a two month old infant is capable of "Engaging in dyadic joint attention and conversation-like exchanges with adults during which each is the focus of the other's attention and they take turns exchanging looks, noises and mouth movements." - Where does this information come from? The statement as worded is open to question.

Anyone who has seen a child interact with an adult doesn't need proof that the sky is blue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs)

Developmental markers of joint attention in infancy

• This section is open to as the editor has combined several sources into one table, thus synthesizing the information. Not all statements in the table are cited.

Examples of possible problems in the article

• Are the editors concerned that 19 of the citations refer to animal studies? And some of those citations source human behavior.

Humans are in the animal kingdom. It seems the article topic talks of both.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs)

• Is the reviewer concerned that the statement that a two month old is "Engaging in dyadic joint attention and conversation-like exchanges with adults during which each is the focus of the other's attention and they take turns exchanging looks, noises and mouth movements" is uncited?

Anyone who has seen a child interact with an adult doesn't need proof that the sky is blue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs)

• Is the reviewer concerned that one of the other sources used in the article contradicts the time line presented at one point in the article.?[1]
• Is the reviewer concerned that the passive voice is frequently used?
• "Great apes such as orangutans and chimpanzees also show some understanding of joint attention." - so do dogs and other animals. This statement is misleading.Gaze Following and Joint Visual Attention in Nonhuman Animals

Misleading in what way? 'Understanding' is they key term. Those animals show understanding of JA, while other animals may just participate in it. Such as a dog looking or pawing a ball, and then looking at a master. This shows they want the master to acknowledge the ball.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs)

• "Dyadic joint attention can be thought of as a conversation-like behavior that individuals engage in. This is especially true for human adults and infants who engage in this behavior starting at two months of age. - this is cited to an article on chimpanzees (16 citation go to this article).

The sky is still blue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs)

• Is there any indication that the nominator responded to the (minimal) suggestions that the reviewer made?

The lead only seemed that way to me. It does fit WP standards for a lead. I just believe in shorter leads as opposed to longer ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs)

• The reference section needs copy editing.
• Pointing needs disambig, so the reviewer didn't even check that.

I'm not saying this is a bad article. It's a psychology article that needs to have the sources evaluated by WP:MEDRS criteria. I'm saying that it was superficially evaluated by an editor with a total of 963 edits, who not familiar with the subject who says it looks good so it's a GA. That's my concern.

Do you assume that WP is the only text I have read and found errors in? And what makes you think I was not as thorough as other GAR. A short summary = a short read? Very bad assumption.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs)

• I am considering submitting this article to Good Article Reassessment, as I don't think it was properly reviewed.

I would constitute that as disruptive editing, the same as I do the edits you reverted of mine that improved the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)