Template:Did you know nominations/Personal relationship skills

Personal relationship skills

 * ... that for therapeutic support with personal relationship skills the most important factor is the counselor themselves – more important than which therapy theory the counselor uses?
 * Reviewed: Dinosaurs, Myths and Monsters
 * and more QPQ help given with DYK comments: Parable of the sunfish.

Created/expanded by VisitingPhilosopher (talk). Self nom at 08:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Reviewed by Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 16:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5 recent expansion ok: using prosesize.js: (103 words) "readable prose size" at 13th Oct -> 14th Oct: (1011 words)
 * Length ok: using prosesize.js.
 * Interesting hook, short enough, correctly formatted with Title of article.
 * Checked REFs - double-checked the actual article's exact subject appears in the REFs.
 * Checked for WP:MOS - grammar ok, I did some very minor fixes. Article layout too is ok - WP:LAYOUT.
 * Neutral - REFs are mainly secondary sources; No advert. No howto instructional text. Hook paragraph is neutral giving 3 different (sourced) views on the hook.
 * QPQ checked ok.
 * During my review I discovered several previous reviewers' comments on the new material, including an administrator who has commented. These are on the article's Talk page and in the Talk archives. I have checked that these comments have now all been fixed in the current main space article.
 * – Need to AGF the hook source, This is not great as the article's author is a new editor. I have found the hook source now but run out of time today on this one.  The hook source is on Questia "Is Who Delivers the Treatment More Important Than the Treatment Itself?", the abstract is not sufficient to fully check "close paraphrasing" in the copyrighted article.  Someone with more time than me could use the free-trial period on Questia to have a look. If not, then AGF will have to do.
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Review conclusion - The main thing I liked about the article is that it gives comprehensive links within Wikipedia to the subject area.  The article content itself is bland, although well-sourced.
 * Not a jewel of an article, but a workman-like and solid addition to Wikipedia. Mediation4u  (chat)nb: editing is fun 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Re: AGF above - Hook is sourced ok - I looked on Questia as suggested above and checked the hook in the source. The hook is supported well in the source's conclusion and even in the source's title.   The research reviewed is thorough usually with control groups included too.  close-paraphrasing ok - I searched for several phrases in the hook source - the copyright material has a very academic style which is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 * The hook source is a Secondary source analysing several studies, including "evidence from arguably the best and most comprehensive psychotherapy outcome study ever completed".
 * It looks to me like much of the research was trying to prove "empirically validated therapies", by comparing "good" with "bad" therapy techniques. However they kept getting unstuck as their control group and the "bad" techniques kept succeeding instead of failing.  Then they worked out that it was a group of "good" therapists who were successful and "bad" therapists who failed.  That was the correlation for success, not the therapy model which the therapist used.  In another 2006 study they quote an APA Presidential Task Force which concluded that: "The individual therapist has a substantial impact on outcomes, both in clinical trials and in practice settings" CathMontgomery (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone can make a better hook out of this lot, then please go ahead. I think the existing proposed hook is a good one myself.  I checked out the source 'cos this DyK fact surprised me.  So I think this hook is a good one for the main page.  CathMontgomery (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Per discussion at WT:DYK, opening for re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am the main article contributor. I will be very grateful for further feedback on the article to help  improve it.  The paragraph removed due to copyvio was something I had tried somewhat to re-word, but as time went on it slipped off my list.  The rest of the article is entirely my own work with no copyvio or close paraphrasing.     There are 2 REFs in the article which are no longer posted at their URLs, but I have the 2 saved web-pages to store in a web archiving service, which I can do.  All electronic-copy REFs I can supply similar saved web pages in one ZIP file, if a reviewer is interested.  I can also scan in any pages from my books too, as requested, if that helps.  After re-review, How long is there before the DYK goes "stale"?  Should I solicit a reviewer, or is there a reviewer (perhaps who has already started to look at it) who is willing to help?  ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 13:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to reviewer comment at WT:DYK: I have reworded the paragraph entirely from the source, not a single word in the re-write is in the source (except "Loving well"). Please comment if this is still too airy-fairy, it can be re-worded again.
 * "Loving well is a gift which people can delight in. Loving another person well enriches both - the sum of the two halves adds up to more as a whole.  The hope for a joyous future together can allow a partnership to overcome seemingly intractable obstacles when they face adversity.
 * If the above is ok then I will add it to the article. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 14:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone has any time to give feedback on the article, I would be grateful, whether a full review for DYK or just your first thoughts. I have paid attention to SYNTH and OR by referencing each sentence in the article.  However many of those REFs were deleted by a previous reviewer, Sionk, after they had satisfied him of no-synth, no-OR, and no-essay;  that left the article reading better stylistically, but looking like it does now.  As above, I have reworded entirely that paragraph which was raised as an issue.  I extend my humble apologies for that one over-sight.  Warmest regards,  ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi VP. This article has some strong points, nice layout and use of images for instance.  But it has some major issues related to scope.  "Personal relationship skills" is a wide and vague topic.  What you have accomplished here is more a "Human Relationship" portal,  that is, an annotated navigational aid.  We have a wide overview of aspects related to "personal relationships", but not an encyclopedic treatment of a well-defined topic.  The problems are evident even in the Table of Contents - "love" and "cheerfulness" are not skills so much as concepts or states of being.  There is helpful advice in the text, but that isn't the purpose of a WP article.   I know this feedback isn't very helpful in terms of making adjustments to the article, but if I had some advice, it would be: narrow your focus.  Find a well-defined aspect of personal relationships, and focus on that.  The Interior  (Talk) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insights. Sasata has also advised a paring down to defined skills rather than attempting a holistic all-encompassing article.  I will mull it over, take it on board, rethink and come up with a plan.  I had interpreted "encyclopedic" as requiring "universal themes"; but almost the opposite is required - "specific definitions".  If you have any more specific items which need to change other than "Love" and "Cheerfulness" then please let me know.  I appreciate the help ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 22:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * VP, excellent attitude and response to criticism. I agree with your conclusion that specificity is a good goal.  I've got the article watchlisted, and will try to give further advice on revising.  I'm going to fail this nomination, as it may take some time to sort out the best path for this article.  Don't let this discourage you - the article shows promise, but isn't eligible as it stands. Symbol delete vote.svg  The Interior  (Talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * VP, excellent attitude and response to criticism. I agree with your conclusion that specificity is a good goal.  I've got the article watchlisted, and will try to give further advice on revising.  I'm going to fail this nomination, as it may take some time to sort out the best path for this article.  Don't let this discourage you - the article shows promise, but isn't eligible as it stands. Symbol delete vote.svg  The Interior  (Talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interior, I have understood that DYK is not going to happen. I intended from my nomination to gain help for the article.  This hope has worked out well and the article should improve from the expert advice; all in good time.  Thanks for the barnstar, I think this article will need continuing resilience to please more of the people, more of the time.  I am preparing for that rocky road.   ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 01:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the above discussion stands as a moment in the history of the article, to be preserved. So I would prefer it if this page is not deleted. But I don't know the protocol on such things for DYK noms which go stale.  Yours, inquisitively, ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 21:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, this page will be kept for archival purposes at its present page name. The Interior  (Talk) 22:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)