- The article passes initial checks, I have closely checked the "immediate fail" criteria.
- Pass - I have superficially checked for the remaining criteria, including some google checks for "close paraphrasing", these checks were all good.
- no digressions - The article covers the subject reasonably well from my knowledge (I have attended medical classes in this field).
- More coverage - The article briefly mentions "touch". I understood that "skin-to-skin" contact as soon as possible was encouraged and proven to help bonding, but I have not had time to google for reliable sources.
- More images - Could do with more than 1, so I have added another to the article which shows skin-to-skin with a newborn.
- grammar - I have edited to improve it where I felt the grammar was bad.
This article is now ready for a more experienced GA reviewer to give feedback. This is my first attempt at GA reviewing, just getting the ball rolling for this worthy article. So I have set the GAN status parameter to "2ndopinion" on the Talk page. CathMontgomery (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts:
- How many of the cited references have you read, to make sure that they actually say what they're supporting here? It's an important step.
- The prose would be more likely to be "clear" (criterion 1a) if some effort were made to remove needless jargon. The sentence Mothers who experienced adversity in their own childhood, had higher diurnal cortisol levels, and were less maternally sensitive. struck me for two reasons: The first is that it's a good opportunity to use smaller words (for example, "higher cortisol levels each day"). The second is that it's a comma splice. There should be no comma between the subject and the verb.
- Overall, I think it would benefit from finding one good "overview" source on the main subject and using that as much as possible. Right now, it feels a bit like a complete list of all the cool articles that I found on the subject, even if they're not in humans, only have a small sample size, etc. A decent textbook or a reference work could provide some balance. (Unlike peer-reviewed journals, Wikipedia prefers review articles and textbooks, which provide balance, context, and interpretation, to papers on original experiments.)
- The picture you added isn't actually skin-to-skin contact. Both the mother and the baby are clothed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Review conclusion Sept 2012
- I'll make the suggested comma splice grammar improvement. Unless there is any objection. More style improvements may be required in a similar fashion.
- This article could pass GA with more text-book secondary source refs and summary text, but is not likely to pass until this has been achieved. The secondary sources are very easy to find, by quickly checking the citation-lists of the multitude of primary sources in the article. The secondary sources which provide analysis of the research can, at a minimum, be added as references aswell for the same facts in the article.
- I agree with splitting into Parental brain (humans) and Parental brain (animals) - this has now been recommended by three reviewers with no-one against.
- Many thanks for the GA review guidance. CathMontgomery (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Time to close?
- It's been six weeks since the above, the nominator never addressed any issues after the review began, and hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 23. Given that there are still significant issues with the article, including a recommended split, it is probably time to close the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- As the reviewer herself hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 27, I'm closing this; the edit summary from late October seems to indicate that this was the intention anyway, and as a first-time reviewer, she may simply not have known how to do it. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)