Talk:Joint attention/GA1

GA Review
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.

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.?
 * 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)

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