GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "From the 1990s onwards there was a series of prosecutions for deaths or serious maltreatment of children," subject/verb agreement? That's in the lead. "This form of therapy is scientifically unvalidated and is not considered to be part of mainstream psychology either as to understanding of attachment theory..." as to? Again, lead section. "The screaming and tantruming five year old was buckled into a highchair" Tantruming is a verb? MoS compliance, using WP:SS, looks mostly good, but the Cases section could be more consistent. Citation style is also mixed--pick one and be consistent throughout.

Sorry - I can't think how to reword "as to". Unfortunately when I was at school grammar was not taught as it was considered elitist. I'd be glad of some help on this point. Fainites ^barley 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fainites ^barley 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the refs. Well spotted! I thought I'd changed them all to {citation} Fainites ^barley 22:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Was" agrees with "series". Fainites ^barley 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, actually. Sorry about that. However, I'd still recommend changing it to something less ambigious, like "From the 1990s onwards there have been multiple prosecutions for deaths or serious maltreatment of children" How does that sound to you? Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or there have been a number of... Fainites ^barley 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that works too. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done the cases too.Fainites ^barley 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Looks very well referenced, didn't notice any OR on first pass.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   "It is distinct from mainstream forms of therapy based on attachment theory as it is primarily based on misapplied psychoanalytic theories about suppressed rage, catharsis, regression and the breaking down of resistance and defence mechanisms." That's in the lead.

This is a summary of the part of the article which deals with the background and development of attachment therapy. Are you saying it must have a reference in the lead? Fainites ^barley 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV problem with the sentence is "based on misapplied psychoanalytic theories"--You and I may agree they're misapplied, but the proponents obviously do not agree. Word that in a more neutral way, such as "which mainstream organizations such as the APA have termed 'misapplied'."--with appropriate citations, of course. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could just remove "misapplied" from the lead. There is a collection of sources in the history section about this topic which explains it. Fainites ^barley 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added Zaslow who is the basic root. Fainites ^barley 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Are there no images available of any advocates, logos of an associated organization, nothing?

I did find some very good pictures of angry or sad looking kids but these were objected to for various reasons (not least because they didn't actually illustrate the subject - just added interest). I must say it hadn't occured to me to add logos of proponents. ATTACh certainly acknowledge their AT history but I'm not sure the same can be said of many therapists. Mind you - the attachment therapist who used to control this page with 6 sockpuppets objected to any suggestion that ATTACh was connected with attachment therapy despite their own statements.Fainites ^barley 22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually need images for GA (or FA for that matter). It would just be nice to have some.Fainites ^barley 22:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Prose needs subtantial work--examples are just that: examples. Please go over the article thoroughly for NPOV and style issues. ON HOLD for up to a week for review and improvement. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone most of the historical roots section - hopefully to provide more clarity. Fainites ^barley 09:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

There is still a lot of passive voice in the article, as well as many sentences which are needlessly long and complicated. I don't like the way you have year citations in the text, but use <ref>...</ref> style footnoting. I think you ought to drop the years from the text throughout, or go to straight APA citations--what you've got is a mix of the two. Several things seem to be referenced in multiple places throughout the text.

I'm thinking more and more that this ought to go through peer review for copyediting before it's really ready to pass GA. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can deal with the inline cites and all your tags tomorrow and look at the long sentences. Don't give up yet! Seven days is up on the 3rd September. Fainites ^barley 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - cannot two sentences be referenced by one citation? For example here, there are two sentences summarising a bit from Speltz with the cite at the end. You have added a fact tag after the first sentence. Is it really necessary to repeat the ref after each sentence?

• "In relation to the use of the Z-process and holding for autism, Zaslow's ideas have been dispelled by research on the genetic/biologic causes of autism.^{[citation needed]} Unlike Zaslow’s techniques, interventions based on behavioral principles have proven effective with autistic children.^[1]"Fainites ^barley 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can, but it wasn't necessarily clear to me that it did. I'd rewrite the two sentences to be more clearly connected. There's multiple instances of "Some people say foo. Jones says bar.[cite]" construction, where it's not unequivocally clear to a non-specialist that "foo" and "bar" are related. I tagged a bunch of the ones I noticed with ((who)). I much prefer something like "Some people, such as Jones,[cite] Smith,[cite] and Brown,[cite] say foo. Brown further says bar." --In that case, unless it's a different cite for Brown's additional statement, the reader has just seen it in the prior sentence. Make sense? Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Actually, thinking about it, the bit about what does work for autistic children is probably otiose anyway. Fainites ^barley 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this bit There have been professional licensure sanctions against some leading proponents where you've tagged it "who", this is from a passage in the Taskforce Report. Is it necessary to name names? I thought, this being an encyclopaedia article, listing actual therapists, who presumably were acting in good faith whatever the mainstream clinicians and theorists think about attachment therapy, seems unecessary. As the Taskforce is a very notable source, is it not enough that they say what they say? Fainites ^barley 21:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article question(s)

• Is the text (Chaffin et al, 2006) really intended to follow the final sentence of the second lead paragraph? It looks out of place there, and it would seem that the information is sufficiently covered in the references. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fainites ^barley 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence "In contrast, traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children's physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment." has problems. The sentence is describing qualities of a caregiver, but immediate lists "environmental stability", which does not appear to be a caregiver quality. "Parental sensitivity" is a problem because the article states that caregivers are not always parents. The next entry starts with "and". Does that mean that the list of qualities is meant to stop at this entry and the remaining remarks are a further exploration of the theory? Regardless, the unqualified "consistency" is too broad to be useful, for example, what if a caregiver consistently drives well or consistently starves the child? The entire sentence needs rework, but I'm not sure exactly what it's trying to say. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it I think. The environmental bit seemed to be repeated anyway. On the second point, "consistency" is pretty commonly cited as an important parental quality in the sense that it doesn't really matter whether you are a permissive parent or a strict one provided the boundaries and expectations are consistent. Also in the sense of being consistently emotionally 'available' to a child. Technically you're right. It could mean consistently abusive or consistently drunk - but only if you read it disjunctively from all the other positive qualities. The problem is - this is pretty much a direct paraphrase from the Taskforce Report (about 10 joint authors - drafting by committee) and I don't quite like to make assumptions about a source and add things to a sourced point. Personally I think it's unlikely to be misunderstood given the context but I'll have another look at the source. Fainites ^barley 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the passage:

"Traditional attachment theory holds that caregiver qualities such as environmental stability, parental sensitivity, and responsiveness to children’s physical and emotional needs, consistency, and a safe and predictable environment support the development of healthy attachment. From this perspective, improving these positive caretaker and environmental qualities is the key to improving attachment. From the traditional attachment theory viewpoint, therapy for children who are maltreated and described as having attachment problems emphasizes providing a stable environment and taking a calm, sensitive, nonintrusive, nonthreatening, patient, predictable, and nurturing approach toward children (Haugaard, 2004a; Nichols, Lacher,&May, 2004). Moreover, generally accepted theory suggests that because attachment patterns develop within relationships, correcting attachment problems requires close attention to improving the stability and increasing the positive quality of the parent-child relationship and parentchild interactions."

Grammar by committee? I suppose it was assumed that most people reading the Taskforce Report would have some familiarity with the language of child development but I really don't think the use of consistency in this way is obscure. Fainites ^barley 21:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close my remarks on this minor wording sub-issue by stating that I believe for the common understanding of consistency in an article written for the untrained public, actions would normally be consistent "in", "about", or "applied to" a practice. As I am not offering a review or recommendation on FA/GA status, I leave my suggestions to your best judgement as the article's primary author and subject matter expert. Please understand that I do not hold a strong opinion on the particular wording: I seldom do, except for clear errors.

But this does illustrate a reason why I am hesitant to work too deeply on the wording of others' articles. The energy expended on disaccord is often all out of proportion to the result. Some prolonged FAC and MOS discussions approach black comedy for the subtle differences in dispute. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too true. Not just MOS either. I once had to redo over 100 citations 3 times to 3 different specifications in pursuit of FA status.Fainites ^barley 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are minor miscellaneous issues I noticed when reading the article that I don't have enough information to change, or which require an author decision or input.

evidenced-based isn't consistently hyphenated in a reference quote and I don't have access to the quote to see if that's correct.

Quotes in the article are usually double quotemarked, but occasionally are single quotemarked. I don't see a pattern for the difference, except for their correct usage in nested quotes.

A point that may bite you later on, WP:MOSABBR states that et al should have a period after the "al", although my dictionary disagrees and two online dictionaries are split on the matter. Yes, they really have a guideline for that; it probably should be disputed by a brave soul.

"attachment-disordered" is much more commonly hyphenated as a compound word than not in a search through Google Books, although there is a large enough count without the hyphen that you might successfully claim it as an accepted variation.

"<age>-year-old boy or girl" format is not consistently hyphenated in the article. I recommend two hyphens, but at a minimum the formatting should be the same for all uses.

Re: "They set out recommendations for both the better dissemination of understanding of attachment theory and knowledge of the more recent evidence-based treatment options available." Are the recommendations both "better dissemination" and "knowledge"? Recommending "education" rather than "knowledge" makes more sense to me. Or is the "both" misplaced and should be applied to the dissemination of both "understanding" and "knowledge"?

The main article content uses "Web" in one instance rather than the usual "Internet". "Web" is pretty old-school, I'd recommend sticking with "Internet" throughout.

"Attachment theory" is wikilinked five times. This may be seen as overdone.

I don't think that the editorial "(s)" in the quote "unequivocally state (s) our opposition" should be separated from the word "state" that it modifies. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely all done - except that I need to check later on whether 'evidence-based' is hyphenated in the quote from the source.Fainites ^barley 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the source does in fact use evidence-based (with hyphen) and evidence based (without hyphen) in one sentence! It doesn't look like there's any grammatical justification for it. They probably should have got you to copy-edit it before publication. What do I do now? Stay true to the text or correct it? Fainites ^barley 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you're quoting, their mistakes are not your responsibility.  :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for that - though it will be interesting to see if any Wiki-gnomes try to correct it :D Fainites ^barley 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To my way of thinking, the article currently has a problem in its lack of separation of the lead from the rest of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an introduction and an independent summary. However, the first sentence of main content after the lead starts with "The controversy has centered…". What controversy? The article isn't Controversies of attachment therapy. The title is Attachment therapy which, as one of the details about the subject, is controversial. I think the content needs to ease into the initial controversy statement with a bit of background—even a sentence or two—rather than depending on the "independent" lead to set the context. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this resolve it? I was trying to describe what AT actually was, but the source describes it in the context of it being both amorphous and controversial, but centring around holding types of therapy. Its difficult because although people who know, know what attachment therapy is, there's no accepted definition because its all outside the mainstream.

I'm trying to sort this but the broadband is so slow at the moment it's driving me mad. I'll come back later. Fainites ^barley 13:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged material to try and show what AT is and what the controversy arises from. Fainites ^barley 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a rewrite suggestion for the following sentence: Zaslow considered attachment arose when an infant experienced pain, fear and rage and then experienced eye contact when a carer attended to his needs and relieved those feelings

Problems I see with the sentence are that the eye contact is not explicitly bound to the carer, the infant is assumed male, and the sentence is rather awkward, wordy and redundant. By redundant, I mean if a carer relieved the infant's feelings, that seems to be the cause of the attachment, and attending to the needs is simply part of the relief. Instead, how about the shorter: Zaslow thought attachment arose when an infant experienced feelings of pain, fear and rage, and then made eye contact with the carer who relieved those feelings.

You think maybe, could be, something else entirely, or leave it alone? -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll change it. Fainites ^barley 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is very difficult to understand what in it is really supported by empirical studies and what is hypothesis or might be even WP:SYN.

For example: "There are a number of attachment styles or patterns, known as "secure", "anxious-ambivalent", "anxious-avoidant", (all "organized") and "disorganized", some of which are more problematical than others and may be predictive of future social or emotional problems, but none constitute a disorder in themselves." - This sentence is very vague and it has no reference. - "may be predictive" - what does that mean? And if they do not constitute a disorder in themselves, maybe you could explain their relevance to Attachment therapy, especially since "Early intervention for disorganized attachment, or other problematic styles, is directed toward changing the trajectory of development to provide a better outcome later in the person's life." - if they only "may be predictive", what is the rationale for "changing the trajectory of development"? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically Matisse, attachment therapy isn't supported by anything. Its a pseudoscience. However, one of its many claims is that it is based on attachment theory. Attachment theory authors/researchers/commentators etc say it is not. That much is fully cited. There is huge ampunts of research on attachment theory. However, what I was trying to provide was a little potted version of the relevent parts of attachment theory to enable readers to understand the difference in diagnosis or assessment within the world of attachment theory as opposed to within the world of attachment therapy. Obviously I am not achieveing my aim of making the article understandable! I can certainly cite the parts you mention with no difficulty, but is the point not getting across? ie that within attachment theory there are styles which are not disorders and there is a DSM classification of RAD. However, within attachment therapy they either diagnose "Attachment disorder" or RAD in a way not recognised by the mainstream. They use symptom lists that do not accord with either DSM or the tenets of attachment theory. Its important to be clear because one of the things attachment therapists do in their extensive advertising material on the web is mix up insecure attachment styles (common, not a disorder and not necessarily a problem) with attachment disorder (very rare and quite serious). Fainites ^barley 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I'll cite the bits you mention and rearrange the material for clarity.Fainites ^barley 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick notes: you have a dab link in the lead (rage); you should check all of those with the tools that I'll install at the top of this talk page. And the infobox at the top of the article is completely confusing to the uninitiated; I have no idea what any of it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean the CAM box? Its just one of those navigation box things. Attachment therapy appears in lists of CAM therapies and treatments in various places. Its not a problem if it goes though. There was some discussion about it earlier. I'm not sure its really appropriate now anyway as attachment therapy likes to claim to be mainstream and "evidence-based" and based on attachment theory so its a pseudoscience really rather than a CAM. Fainites ^barley 21:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the toolbox thing. Cool! Fainites ^barley 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Review

Note: this is actually the fourth review, counting Failed "good article" nomination failed by Sandstein October 9, 2007, GA fail failed by Nikki311 April 9, 2008, GA Review failed by Jclemens August 27, 2008. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No JClemens didn't fail it as you keep repeating all over the shop. He asked for a second opinion. So what anyway? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm dropping by after noticing that the second opinion tag had been on the GAN page for a while. This isn't my area of expertise, so I probably won't be able to tell you if anything big is missing, but I can give you some help on prose and references. I'll have my comments up in a little bit. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On references:
  • All of your links to the Advocates for Children in Therapy link (including the external link) should be updated, as they have changed their domain name from advocatesforchildrenintherapy.org to just childrenintherapy.org. For the moment, this isn't a big deal, but if they ever decide to take down the old domain, it will make a good chunk of your references deadlink.

Done.Fainites ^barley 19:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Informaworld references (1,44,76) are timing out on me. I'm not sure if this is just a temporary issue or not.

Seem to be working now. I note Dr Hughes website seems to have been disabled though.Fainites ^barley 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please make sure that all of your references have publishers and access dates. For example (note, these are just examples, not an exhaustive list), #34 doesn't have an access date, while 47, 48 and 102 don't have publishers.

Sorry - you've lost me there. 47 is a journal. 102 is a newspaper.

Looks good now.

• • For your Taskforce Report inline references, please put the author first, as this is how you have the publication listed in the references section.

Do you mean "Chaffin et al" rather than "APSAC"? Is another alternative to put (APSAC Taskforce report) in front of the reference.Fainites ^barley 19:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way you have it now will be fine. The only thing I can see now with this is that you have a couple (notable refs 5 and 67) that don't have page numbers.

• • You need to be consistent in how you format your references. If you are going to use the split reference format for books and journals, you need to do it for all books and journals. Basically, all of your book references have to be consistent with each other, and all of your journal refs have to be consistent with each other - the groups themselves don't have to be consistent with other groups, if this makes sense. Also, the consistency has to extend to either always using cite templates or never using them. This consistency is especially important if you plan on taking the article to FA - you'll really get hammered on it there.

Bother. I thought I'd done all these. Fainites ^barley 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template used throughout. They should all now be consistent.Fainites ^barley 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation templates should be used in the references section as well then. And also, there are still full book citations for a few books in the in-line refs. There needs to be consistency in using either full refs in-line or split refs.

I've fixed the refs section citation templates but I'm being a bit dim on the next bit. Do you mean where I have used page numbers for refs with the full citation in the references section? I did it like this at FAC for RAD as it is the only way I could find to do it where you are citing multiple times with different page numbers from the same source. The only alternative was to cite the same book over and over in the notes section.Fainites ^barley 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the split refs format, like you have for most of the books now, with most of the info in the refs section and just the author name and page number in the notes section. What I'm saying is that if you do this for some of the books, you have to do it for all of the books. For example, you have refs 32 and 78 (just picking two at random) that are in the split format, but refs 2 and 3 have the full information in the notes section. Consistency is what I'm aiming for here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What i've done is - is anything thats a book or something like a Taskforce report thats cited more than once goes in the refs with page numbers in the notes. However, there are some books which are basically collections of articles so those go in the notes under the name of the authors of the article even though several are from the same book. The only one of these i've put in the refs is O'Connor and Nilsen which I used a great deal which I thought needed multiple page numbers. However, as an article its only 13 pages long including refs so I could just put it in the notes.Fainites ^barley 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is fine. However, if you are planning on taking this article to FA, I would check with SandyGeorgia (or Ealdgyth) about what they think on the consistency thing. I would do this before FA, so that if they think you should change it, you get it out of the way before noming the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've added a few fact tags.
• On prose:
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, it shouldn't include original information, and so doesn't need references unless they are backing up a direct quotation.

I've reduced too detailed info from the lead and put it in the body. However, various FA psychology articles like Aspergers, Autism and Reactive attachment disorder all use refs in the lead. I'll check the policy on this.Fainites ^barley 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that are backing up direct quotations (5 and 6) are fine to leave in. The rest should be citing information that is already in the body of the article, and so doesn't need to be repeatedly cited.

Hey, Fainites :-) Sorry to jump in here, but it looks like you're FAC bound, so I wanted to weigh in on citations in the lead. Have a look at Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, which conforms with the citation level you see at Tourette syndrome, Asperger syndrome, autism, schizophrenia, etc. There is a lot of confusion "out there" about citations in the lead, and WP:LEAD sums it up well. You won't be led astray by citing in the lead all hard data and anything likely to surprise the reader or that looks like an opinion or controversial info. In terms of the other sample FAs I've pointed out above, for example, schizophrenia should have a cite on the 40% hard data. You don't want to overcite the lead, and you don't need to cite common, summarizing info, but there is no exemption from citations in the lead on quotes, hard data, or anything surprising or likely to be challenged. I think if you were to remove the citation, for example, on six documented fatalities in the lead, that would most certainly be challenged at FAC, as it surprises the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well;[1] sorry for the interruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bugger. I just spent the last half hour removing them all before I saw your comment here! Still - they can easily go back. Fainites ^barley 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bow before Sandy's wisdom: do whatever she says :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ma'am! Fainites ^barley 20:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • There should not be external links in-line like there are in the Prevalence section. These should either be converted into references or moved to the external links section.

OK. Will do. Fainites ^barley 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You go back and forth between using "Task Force" and "Taskforce" to describe the APSAC group. Please pick whichever one is used in the official description of the group and stick with that throughout the entire article.

Done.Fainites ^barley 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Other:
  • Are there no pictures that can be used it illustrate this article? This is a long and fairly technical article, and a few images would help to relieve the text.

I had some pics of angry looking children but others said that they weren't children actually diagnosed with anything or undergoing AT so were POV or irrelevant. I've tried getting pics of AT in action but the therapists are very hot on copyright violations. A quick look at this very short remaining YouTube video may explain why [2] Note the elbow in the midriff and the therapist indicating "eye contact". The lengthier YouTube extracts have recently been removed as they were training videos and so presumably there were copyright issues.Fainites ^barley 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I guess it makes sense that they wouldn't want photos/videos of controversial techniques out there - extra material for critics... Oh well, if there's nothing, there's nothing. Please just keep this in mind if you ever do happen to come across some non-copyright photos/vids.

Overall, this looks like a nice article. The issues above are fairly minor, so I think this article should be left on hold to allow my concerns to be addressed, and then the article passed to GA status. If you have any questions, drop me a note here or on my talk page. Also, Jclemens, as the original reviewer, please add any comments that you may have. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bowed out because I thought I'd gotten too close to/involved in the article, and you've brought a set of fresh eyes that have seen issues that I missed. I have no objection to any of your comments--thanks for finishing this up. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully I can get all this sorted by the end of the week. Fainites ^barley 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my comments above and made a few replies. The article is definitely progressing, and shouldn't take too much more work to get it to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. My only final comments would be to remove the external links from the Prevalence section and check with some FA people on the split ref thing (see my comment above for elaboration). Nice work on a complicated and potentially POV-ridden article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with article

• Are Mainstream therapies considered Attachment therapy since you say that this is article is pseudoscience on the talk page as well as in the lead? If not, why is there a section in this article? (Mainstream implies commonly accepted or legitimate). Recommend that you not confuse the reader by combining legitimate and pseudoscience in the same article.
• "Probably the most common form of attachment therapy is holding therapy..." - I recommend that you not using vague terms like "probably".
• Diagnosis and attachment disorder - Here again is a section that discribes mainstream medically-accepted diagnoses and mixes this with the pseudoscience. There is no point in getting into mainstream diagnoses, since they do not apply to this article. For example, "Within mainstream practice, disorders of attachment are classified in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as follows:" - and then you describe material irrelevant to this article. This will confuse the general reader and merely repeats information from other articles that are legitimate.
• Prevelence - "Attachment therapy prospered during the 1980s and 90s as a consequence of both the influx of older adopted orphans from Eastern European and third world countries and the inclusion of reactive attachment disorder in the 1980 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which attachment therapists adopted as an alternative name for their existing unvalidated diagnosis of attachment disorder...." - again, this is very misleading because you are combining mainstream views with the pseudoscience.
• Evidence basis and controversial therapies - This is a very confusing heading. Since this is pseudoscience, should this section not just be called Controversial therapies? This is not an article that is based on scientific evidence, is it? So I am not understanding what "Evidence basis" means. It is not a common term.
• Recommendations - Remove all the material that is scientifically based and accepted by the medical/psychological disciplines. This is already amply covered in other articles, as your wikilinks show. If you want to have a small paragraph somewhere, describing that there are legitimate therapies, in contrast to the pseudoscience topic of this article, and give some links, that would be fine. But continually intermixing the legitimate with pseudoscience does a disservice to the reader; further, it is not on topic for your article.

Really, this would improve and clarify your article and help you to focus on the topic at hand. To concentrate on your subject matter only would allow the article to make sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mattisse by Dana

Mattisse, I find that after reading your comments I agree with several of them. I must confess that these issues never crossed my mind as I was reading the article, possibly because this is a subject that I have had little exposure to in the past. However, now that I read your comments, I realize that you are right in several instances.

• The Mainstream therapies section could probably be completely removed, since you're right, it really seems to have nothing to do with the topic being discussed in the article. Or, at the very least, it could be trimmed to a brief section that says, basically "xyz is what real doctors do for this, see abc article".
• Diagnosis and attachment disorder - the last two paragraphs of this section could probably be trimmed or cut completely, as they are based on what mainstream medical practitioners say, rather than practitioners of attachment therapy techniques.
• Evidence basis and controversial therapies - I am agreeing that this section header could be improved, but I am going the opposite direction from Mattisse. You have already established that these are controversial therapies, so you probably don't need to point it out again in the section header. Perhaps it could be changed to something like "Evidence basis for therapy"?

Fainites, I've asked Mattisse to hold of on a GAR right at the moment, to give you a chance to respond to both of our comments. If you could respond here ASAP with your replies to our comments, that would be fantastic! Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the section heading Evidence basis and controversial therapies, the section establishes that there is no evidence on which to base the therapy. It is pseudoscience. Therefore, it is misleading to put Evidence basis and controversial therapies in the same heading. Maybe No evidence for effectiveness of controversial therapies or something shorter. Pseudoscience of controversial therapies. But not all controversial therapies are in the same bag of pseudoscience as attachment therapy; attachment therapy is really in the same category as the kindergarden sex scandals of past years. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is alot in what you say. I hadn't really looked at it like this before. Certainly the "mainstream therapies" bit could pretty much go. I'll have to give some more thought to the diagnosis business as diagnosis by "symptoms list" is a big aspect of attachment therapy, or is it the mainstream diagnosis bit you say could go? I also agree with you on the titles. I don't think I'm actually mixing up pseudoscience and mainstream. I think the article makes the distinction between the two pretty clear - or at least that was my intention. For example, if you are going to say the attachment therapy mode of diagnosis is unvalidated and not in accordance with mainstream classifications, does it help or hinder to give a brief description of the mainstream classification? However, you're probably right and simply having links to the mainstream stuff is better. Unfortunately I am horribly busy today and tomorrow but I will give a more considered response on Friday. Fainites ^barley 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GA Dana by the way. I will address the remaining points soon! Fainites ^barley 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bit in the Diagnosis section that I am talking about is the last two paragraphs, where it is discussing the mainstream diagnosis bit. As for the Evidence heading, perhaps something like "Proposed evidence basis" or "Proponents claims for evidence base". Although I think you do a good job in making the difference between the pseudoscience and the mainstream science clear, there is probably slightly too much emphasis on the mainstream science here: since it is not the topic of the article, it can probably be cut in the two sections we are discussing. Thanks for taking a new look at the article, and I look forward to your comments this weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There have been four GA reviews. There was one GA review in October 2007 failed by Sandstein. See: GA failed. There were three GA reviews this year: GA fail failed by Nikki311 9 April 2008, GA Review failed by Jclemens 27 August 2008, and the one labeled Second Review by Dana boomer, which should be labeled "Fourth Review" for clarity, passed 22 October 2008

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]