 | Relationship science was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 17, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Hello folks! I think this article could benefit from a section detailing some of the implementations of relationship science. Brief paragraphs about couples therapy (collecting some of the common modalities - Gottman, IBCT, CBCT, etc.), relationship education (PREP, ePREP, and some of the common modules/skills), marriage/relationship checkups, and whatever else is out there could broaden the appeal. I'd like to add some of this, but thought it would be good to signal the intent first. --JVMiller144 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I think figures 4 to 7 need much more informative captions explaining what is represented by the different boxes, circles, and arrows. The common reader is lost – the idea of Wikipedia is not that you have to look up the original research papers in order to follow the logic in a figure or diagram. I'm not an expert in this field, just a curious reader. - Best regards, Claus Emmeche (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC).
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Relationship science/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 08:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take on this review. I hope that the student editor who nominated the article will return to address my feedback here. Since there have been no recent edits from the nominator, I'll leave a small amount of initial feedback first. If the nominator or another editor decides to address the initial feedback, we can continue with the review. If there is no response to this initial feedback in a couple of weeks, we'll close the review and move on to other nominations in the queue. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Lead section
edit- Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the important points from the body of the article. We don't like leads that are more than four paragraphs long, but this single-paragraph lead is too short to summarize such a detailed article. In particular, there are three extensive sections in the body that are overlooked in the lead (history, theories and methodologies); each of those areas should probably get at least a couple of sentences in the lead.
- "Due to its interdisciplinary nature ..." - The field is described as interdisciplinary in the first sentence, so you can take out this part of the second sentence.
- "made-up of" - made up of
- "Additionally, the field's" - no need for additionally
- "dating & married couples" - dating and married couples (the ampersand generally shouldn't be used unless it's part of a proper noun; check the rest of the entry for this issue).
- "but some also study less salient" - but some researchers study less salient
That's all the feedback I have for the lead section at the moment. The first bullet will probably require the most work, but then we can move on to subsequent sections.
Thanks to the nominator for the work that has already gone into this entry! Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm closing this per the above, in the interest of moving through the other nominations that have been waiting on a review for quite a while. It can be nominated again at any point that someone becomes available to address review feedback. Thanks again! Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)