Talk:Joint attention/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   Please see comments below.

   Avoid statements in the passive voice: e.g. "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.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Per lead, it does not summarize the article.

   Everything in the lead must also appear in the article. The reason citations are not needed in the lead is that the material will be cited when it appears in the articles, so there is no need to cite it twice.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

   Not clear what the topic is - joint attention in animals? or only chimpanzees and humans?

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I will be completing this in the next few days. I don't anticipate any serious problems but I do want to do an adequate review according to GA review criteria. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• The following are examples only and not a complete review of all problems.

lede

(example of combining information from different sources, resulting in some confusion to the reader)

• (first sentence) "Joint attention is the shared focus of two individuals on an object."

Source: "In our daily lives, a great deal of information is communicated by means of following another individual's gaze to specific objects and events. This behavioral sequence is called gaze following or joint attention. Gaze following/joint attention is characterized by one individual (X) following the direction of the attention of another individual (Y) attention to an object (Z) (an object of joint focus; Emery 2000)." etc. page 155 of 2006 book on chimpanzees. Following is additional discussion of differences between "gazing", "joint attention" and "shared attention" over which there is some disagreement among researchers.

• (second sentence) "It is achieved when one individual alerts another to an object by means of eye-gazing, pointing or other verbal or non-verbal indication."

Source: "Joint attention and children with autism: A review of the literature" a 2004 journal article, adds additional elements not in the source for the first sentence.

• (third sentence) "In this situation the individual who points is "initiating joint attention" and the individual who looks to the object is "responding to joint attention".

Source: Striano, T.; Stahl, D (2005). "Sensitivity to triadic attention in early infancy". Developmental Science.

• • Suggestion: Stick with one source that explains what is meant by "joint attention"; avoid combining sentences using different sources discussing slightly different topics or looking at the subject from different angles. The lede should be a clear summary of the article content and doesn't usually need citations, as everything in the lede will be covered in the article.

Definitions of joint attention

• "The definition of joint attention is important in order to determine if children are engaging in age-appropriate joint attention and to determine if apes are capable of engaging in joint attention." - why are apes mentioned here. Is this article on humans or on the capacity of other animals for joint attention. (Elsewhere there is evidence that dogs, for example, are capable of joint attention (depending on the definition of "joint attention".)
• "Dyadic joint attention is a conversation-like behavior that individuals engage in." - clumsy wording
• This whole section is a mixture of children, adults, apes, humans in no particular order.
• "There is a debate in contemporary psychology as to the psychological significance of joint attention." After defining various terms as if they are agreed upon definitions, then "controversy" is introduced. Controversy is interspersed with flat statements that sound like fact.
• (Chimpanzees seem to be used interchangeably with apes throughout the article.)
• "A vocal minority maintain that joint attention is always a means to an end (i.e., that "pure communication" in the infancy period of humans is a myth), and therefore joint attention by apes and humans reflects shared psychological processes" - I don't understand what this means.

Suggestion: Clarify the topic and stick to it.

Gaze

• Is this humans, apes, or both?

Intention

• Humans only or what?

Joint attention in humans

• So the preceding was not necessarily human?
• (skipping over a bunch)

Developmental markers of joint attention in infancy

• What is the source for this table? Some of it is unsourced, while a variety of other sources are used. Is this Original research? Or is this a synthesis of different sources into an original combination.

Suggestion: Need one source for table.

General

• Is this article about all animals, about humans, apes and chimpanzees, or humans, apes, chimpanzees and primates, or what? The way the article is organized now, it swings back and forth.

Sources

• Some of the sources are fine. Some it is difficult to tell if they are primary sources or what. It would be better to stick to reliable secondary sources and avoid the confusion of so many references to slightly different topics than the article is focusing on.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. Please feel free to provide feedback or ask me questions.

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I will put this review on hold for seven days. Let me know if you need more time. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend,
Thank you, we will indeed need the whole week to respond to these comments. Students don't return to campus until Tuesday. Classes end at the end of next week, so we will really focus our efforts over those few days.
I am thinking hard about OR (a rule I understand quite well) and synthesis. I'll reflect a bit more before I respond to your concerns about the table.

It is the case that the literature reviewed in books on chimpanzees or other great apes is relevant to the literature on human children, since that is the comparator for great apes. It is in these books that people are most clear about definitions that apply across species. Hence their frequency in the reference list.

As a class we struggled with whether to split this article into two. We thought we should start by just expanding the stub, which integrated across species. We can certainly do further work to be more precise about which claims apply to which species. I am not sure who decides, or how one decides to split an article. We would appreciate any advice.
Paula Marentette (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

reply

• I certainly don't want to pressure you. So take your time.
• However, I question the statement that "It is the case that the literature reviewed in books on chimpanzees or other great apes is relevant to the literature on human children, since that is the comparator for great apes. It is in these books that people are most clear about definitions that apply across species. Hence their frequency in the reference list."

I don't think this is productive thinking for the article.

There are plenty of references that apply to humans only, I believe. Someone mentioned to me recently that penis is the only article that doesn't have a separate article for humans!

Again I suggest that Object permanence is a good model in that it is focused on humans, and mentions animals (all animals) in another section.

comment - example

• The table Developmental markers of joint attention in infancy

This looks like it is a combination of 5 different sources. Is there any one source that supports this, or are you combining the views of several authors into one table?

• What is the isbn for Goswami, Usha (2008)Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain. New York, NY? Sources must have enough information that the reader can track them down. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also, please my response to your comments on my talk page.[1] Another editor added there that Wikipedia:SYNTH is the problem. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

comment on lead (lede)

• Be sure to follow WP:LEAD. Everything appearing in the lead must also appear in the article with citations in the article rather than the lead. The lead must be a summary of the article that can stand on its own. That is, if a reader gets no further than the lead, they will still have an overview of the article and a summary of the main points. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We have made many edits to the article in response to the GA Reassessment above. It is ready for another review. We have

• attended to the prose: in particular edited for passive voice, focused on words to watch for, rewritten the lead
• carefully reviewed for problems of OR and SYNTH. This article is not proposing a new understanding of joint attention, nor synthesizing articles to create a new position. The article reflects a wide body of research on this topic and reports information for which there is widespread agreement.
• we have removed the table, as per Wiki policy on tables.
• we have reorganized the article to separate discussion of joint attention in humans and in non-human animals. We have separated out reference sources so that appropriate sources are used for each section.

Do we need to resubmit for GA review or can we continue the Reassessment started above? Thank you for your work on this review. Paula Marentette (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

reply

• I could pass it, or I could fail it and you could resubmit it.
• The article is much much improved. It still needs a little work though.

1. Everything in the lead must also be expanded upon in the article, where the citations can be provided also. The lead now is good, but the article is more disjointed.
2. Where do you get a definition for "gaze", as I've looked around and can't find one that fits your use of the word. So it would be good if you'd define it in the article.
3. Does eye contact play a role?
4. What information does cross-sectional analysis give? What information did Scaife and Bruner provide?
5. Definitions of joint attention seems disjointed. It should expand on the information. It also gets into gaze, when the whole next section is on gaze. Is gaze part of the definition of joint attention?
6. The sections that follow seem like they should be subsections of Definitions of joint attention - Are there varying "definitions" of joint attention (to justify the plural "definitions"?
7. Perhaps after "Definition", there could be a section called "Importance" or "Importance in development" in which you could describe the importance of joint attention in development of language, relationships etc.
8. Intention, reference could stand some expansion/explaining? There needs to be a sequence, a flow to the information you're presenting.
9. How does joint attention play a role in the development of theory of mind?
10. Really, you are quite close to having a good article. It just needs some focus and flow, so the reader can follow.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are comments below here on the talk page, but I can't seem to find get below them in the edit box, so I'll keep writing in the middle of the page...

We have made a few edits following these comments, but are now in exam period. I don't know that students will have time to work on this article right away. I would suggest you can go ahead and reassess now. IF the article passes, that would be great. It has come a long way from its state in early January! If it isn't GA quality yet, then perhaps they'll be able to revisit after the term, as I imagine that the further changes needed would be fairly minimal. Thank you for your support in this review process. Paula Marentette (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

• Very good job! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)