Talk:Joint attention/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Joint attention/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Joint attention/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

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)

• 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 {{or}} 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.?[http://books.google.com/books?id=DTJMtuAXH6QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0199245630&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vr58T6XXIIbW0QHc7dz-Cw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false]
• 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.[http://www.psy.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/COE21/report/H15/9D-2.pdf 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{{by whom}} 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)