Wikipedia:Peer review/Human bonding/archive1

Human bonding edit

Hi, I am thinking about nominating either interpersonal chemistry or human bonding (or both) for FA candidacy. On the latter article's talk page, it has been suggested that it be a "featured article". Any comments or article critique (on either article) would be appreciated. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a little diversity in the photos? Those all reflect Western culture; look through some country categories on Commons and see if you can find anything from Africa, East Asia, South America, etc. — BrianSmithson 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I added three new pics to human bonding. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America and Groucho Marx? — BrianSmithson 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin throwing (Tahiti), Miss America (of African-American descent), and Groucho Marx (to highlight that a sense of humor is an important part in human bonding, many studies support this). Bonding-related images are not as easy to find at the Commons as you might think; but your point well taken. I switched two of these for more generic ones. If you know of other images ideas please suggest them. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the javelin-throwing picture. There's a good mix of ethnic diversity on the page now, but It still seems Western-skewed to me. The picture of the guy and his dog in particular bothers me; it looks like someone walked into the living room and took a photo of her husband to put it in the article (that's not to say you should necessarily replace that image; just registering my opinion ;)). Maybe peruse Commons Category:Mothers or Category:Musicians by nationality? Category:Brides or Category:Geisha might also be worth a look as possible replacements for the German pageant contestant. Sorry to harp on diversity like this, but I'm a strong believer that Wikipedia needs to counter its systemic bias and represent a worldwide view in articles and imagery.

As for the article itself, I think you're off to a good start. The lead should be expanded a bit, per WP:LEAD. I'd beef up the paragraphs you've got there now to be more of an overview of the whole article. The second issue I notice is that you've got a lot of stubby sections. "Other" under "Bond varieties", and the entire "Types" section. Merge short subsections if necessary or beef them up with more information. In general, don't give a separate section to anything shorter than two paragraphs. People on FAC hate lists, so try to convert "Neurochemistry" into prose. Long "See also" sections are also frowned upon at FAC. The thinking goes that if something is related to the article, it will be linked from within the prose. Try to reduce the "See also" list as much as possible. Was the "Further reading" used to write the article? If so, move it in with "References". Finally, take a fine, hard look at that long list of external links; axe anything that's not absolutely necessary. — BrianSmithson 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All good suggestions; I'll work to filter these through my head over the next month or so. Thanks, for the extra photo categories; looking for good photos, such as at www.shutterstock.com (where I spend a lot of time), is like looking for shinny needles in a maze of hay stacks. --Sadi Carnot 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I'll have to have some mental filter time for these suggestions. --Sadi Carnot 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Neurochemistry' section is a list, it should be turned into prose as much as possible. History seems incomplete: 'Early views' are ok, but what followed them? I wouldg guess the rest of the article describes later=modern views, but it is only my guess. The article needs more refs - some sections and paras (like 'Capture bond' for example) are unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good suggestions; I'll filter these into my head. The neurochemistry section is a “thick” and very new topic of research; new imaging studies crop up almost yearly and there are 100s of different bio-, neuro-, and hormonal-, etc., chemicals to keep track of. Cleaning that section using prose is going to take some work. Yet, three people now, including yourself, suggest that prose is needed. I'll think this over? Later: --Sadi Carnot 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]