Talk:History of the family

Untitled
Thank you for any/all suggestions and help. English is not my native language and this is just a rough draft.Koliber (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the article? This should be on your talk page. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft review
Good start - needs a "to do" task list for different members and input (content) from them. Current content looks good but (1) reference to "wiki polygamy" is not good - Wikipedia is not considered an acceptable reference for itself - see CIRCULAR (2) raw http references should be properly formatted (author, name, last access date, etc.) - see CITE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TO DO
Califae work on the changes in post-industrial family section, and anything else that comes to mind Koliber work on the intro paragraph (and anything else that comes to mind)

What other sections could we introduce ??? Is the scope good ??? --130.49.234.36 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Further suggestions

 * Should "Ancient Perspective" really be a subsection to "Emergence of historical studies of the family"?
 * Add more links to the article (particularly the lead and "Industrial Revolution and the family" section); per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
 * This article has few images. You can search for relevant images on Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository, browse through commons:Category:Family or other categories and gallery pages you think may be of use. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2] Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

An argument for nature
Cali, I think that the argument for nature fragment is unnecessary, but I don't want to remove it. I think it is an archaic language and concept as well an quite irrelevantKoliber (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant to the article, particularly considering the data (1904!)? Now, sometimes citing old sources make sense, if they are important for the later discussion, but I would like to hear a justification for that quote here. Do note that quotations of little relevance to the article should be moved to wikiquote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that part so therefore I do not want to delete it. I think deletion should be discussed with the person who wrote that segment.  Am I correct on this?--Koliber (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be vastly preferable, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further feedback
There are still some problems with grammar and technicality, but the main problem with the article as it stands is breadth. You've done a much better job with referencing than most of the other groups. I would suggest cutting the "Argument for Nature" section, possibly incorporating some of the main ideas into the rest of the text. At this point, the main thing standing between this article and GA status is the scope. Perfect writing would be nice, but it's a secondary issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to expand it a little bit to include LGBT family but that subject is HUGE and I certainly as novice would not do good job in finding neutral sources, plus the LGBT parenting has a fine article on wiki, so instead I just put it as a link. I am not sure if the genetic genealogy section is pushing it, seems to me a little bit, but I will leave it for now.  Any idea about the breadth, which direction should it be expanded.  I have time until tomorrow, thanksKoliber (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are two major areas in which it could be expanded. First, there's the "controversy / evolution" stuff - rising divorces rates, interracial, laws about marriage, adoption, etc. This might be tricky for a new user, considering the potential for arguing/vandalism/NPOV violations. The second would be worldview - the Latino, Native American, African and Asian family, its evolution, etc. Either, though, would take a considerable amount of work. The article also needs to cover all of history, from the emergence of prehistoric kin groups to the present, and that's a whole other target for expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This box is not very encyclopedic; remember - encyclopedia is not a textbook. If those questions can be referenced and attributed, and/or rewritten to an encyclopedic style, they could stay, but if not, the box should go. Rule of thumb: encyclopedias should give answers, not ask questions :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The question box definitely should go, and some of those "see also"s should be in the body of the text instead of the see also section. The most important thing for you to do at this point is to pick a focus and stick to it. You're currently trying to cover the actual history of the family AND the history of family studies equally. You can include the history of family studies as part of the history of the family if you like, but they should be integrated together. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)