User talk:Marentette/Draft joint attention

Is anyone else finding that text in the edit box is not appearing on the Read page?

LianneAnna (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello all, I will put my comments about the article in progress here - I don't know if they'll move with the article or not.

Please don't use APA style in text citations. Although I do expect you to do this for class, it isn't the Wiki style and it is distracting for readers who are not used to this, since they also have endnote citations.

Do we have to say "interactionally-achieved" can't we just say achieved? My guess is the group hasn't written the lead at all yet. This would be a good idea before the DYK submission. The lead should contain a summary of what is in the article.

I'm not sure how wise it is to start the article by a dispute about what it should be called. I'd just go with the dominant view and cite the appropriate source. A general reader isn't likely interested in what it isn't or who once called it something else.

This sentence "Despite the variety of perspectives..." is a mess. There are weird cites in the middle of it and the punctuation is strange. Also, this is not a cell phone. Please use full words and no symbols" & is a symbol not a word. Also just type out joint attention, don't use an acronym for the key term in the article. Use find and replace if you don't want to type it out each time.

The sense I get from this first bit is that some people think apes and humans are the same and some don't. Is that it? Does this warrant a heading "Theoretical Perspectives"? Can this information just be included in a lead paragraph that defines (positively) joint attention and desribes the relevance of the term to research in both populations. The dispute itself can likely be acknowledged under the section on non-human primates.

Joint attention in humans "both attend to some part of the world". I don't really think linking to world is helpful here. Nor do I think it is the right choice of word. Consider object or event in their environment. You may have inherited this from the original, but I'd change it.

The second para is chat to each other and belongs on a talk page not on the article page. This needs to be removed post haste. And while you can keep track of the quote there, it will end up in your own words on the actual page. Right?

Bizarrely, most of the work that is on this article about humans falls under the non-humans heading. I have moved it, but perhaps not how you intend, so do have a look at the whole organization.

Joint attention in non-humans adding references does not negate the need for punctuation. Please use periods to end sentences. Find out whether the wiki standard is before or after citations and then stick to it throughout.

Marentette (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the chunk from the article page that I deleted (I thought I put it here, but it disappeared). This is conversation between editors so belongs on the talk page, not the article page.

"In accordance with some prior research showing that infants engage in some joint attention skills (e.g. gaze follow) before the end of the first year (i.e. D’Entremont, 2000; Hood, Willen, & Driver, 1998), we found that many infants passed some triadic social tasks before 9 months of age." AND "the current research suggests that joint attention skills do not develop in an abrupt fashion and not at 9 months of age." Unsure where this should fit but I thought it might be relevant NadRose (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Perhaps with my added section on stages of Joint Attention (at the bottom of the page), the whole thing would probably fit well right here at the end of this section. LianneAnna (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) That sounds good to me. NadRose (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Marentette (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We are well into the page before we get to the definition. Shouldn't this come first? And be very attentive to the wording, this is likely the most critical piece of the article. Also there is quite a bit of redundancy between the first para under Joint Attention in Humans and the first para under Identifying Joint ATtention. This should be collated into one piece. What does "under a description for that person" mean? Your bullet points are not grammatically parallel.

Possessive markers please!

I don't understand "can be identified using three stages. This is the process a researcher/parent goes through to determine if a child is using joint attention? "and is moved" physically? to another location? On the whole the stages section doesn't inform me about anything. I don't see three different levels of attention and I don't see how they are stages of identification?

Comprehension -comprehension of what? "to extract information" from what? "provides children with a great deal of information" about what? The bit from Bruner needs interpretation. Explain the point, this is not friendly writing for a general reader. Some parent has been told their child is autistic and has trouble with joint attention. What do they need to know?

"By 14 months ... " this sentence is a fragment, it must be connected to the next to make sense. Fix it to maximize intelligibility, don't just remove the period in between!

complimentary (nice hat) // complementary (two things that fit together to make a whole) - I fixed it but please use them correctly.

Following Gaze I need some help about why this is not the same as joint attention... "At 6 months infants respond to shifting in gaze (whose?) by shifting their own gaze"

Re the many approaches to gaze following: which of these is key to joint attention? Is this material about gaze really a separate article? Is there already an article that addresses this? The problem here is that the general reader likely doesn't care. What do they need to know about gaze to understand joint attention? Give them that, and cite the appropriate resources. They probably don't need this much detail (though you do to write about it effectively).

This really summarizes the work that needs to happen in this whole section. print it out, get rid of the redundancy and the unnecessary detail. Think about how to present this clearly to a general reader. Put in the appropriate sources. Move to synthesis of the material for a general reader rather than trying to adequately represent the details of the things you read.

How is social referencing different than joint attention?

I removed the heading about reading. The intention to cover this is included on the talk page. I don't think we should leave place holders in the article itself.

I assume the language production part hasn't been added yet. I'm hoping it will show up quickly as at present there are only notes and not citations.  Developmental Disabilities I would consider removing what you have now to the talk page until you have something much more substantial to say about autism and joint attention. I'm sure it is just there as a placeholder right now, but it gives the idea that the most relevant thing about this topic has to do with "parental psychopathology", which is nonsense. Until you are finished that section I'd just move it.

Stages -this is the second time I've seen this in the article. It makes more sense here but I'm not sure why it is here.

Here is my suggestion for re-organization: Lead: define and describe briefly why the skill of interest. Briefly outline the contents of the article

1. Joint Attn in Humans
 * -detailed definition and developmental progression
 * -role of eye gaze
 * -role of intention

1b. Role of JA in language production 1c. Role of JA in socio-emotional dev't 1d. significance of JA in development of children with disabilities (autism, deafness, blind) - but only if you have tight coherent things to say.

2. Joint Attn in non-human (primates?)

Right now things are scattered. I realize that you likely know that and may not have been ready for me to look, but now is when I can comment. Take what is useful, ignore what you already knew. Marentette (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Paula, you're right we haven't really tried to make it coherent yet...but we will...

LianneAnna (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)