@Zeromonk: Why did you take 30k out this article, in a supposed drive-by copyedit? scope_creepTalk 19:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scope creep: thanks for asking, was being bold - the section went well beyond the scope of the report but did apply to children's hospitals, the article for which was lacking this context and gets far more pageviews too. If you think I was a bit drastic, very happy to discuss what elements you think should be woven back in? Zeromonk (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see you've reverted. I know it may have seemed drastic but I took real care over developing the encyclopaedic tone of the content and removing many repetitions, making the rest chronological and then adding it to Children's hospital where it was particularly relevant and more visible. I should've put an explanation in a talk message but I hope you'll AGF and consider redoing some of the editing. Zeromonk (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I won't. It took me months to write that article and all of it is salient to the context of the main theme, taken from a report on the platt report itself, written decade later for a successful doctorate thesis. And there is other linked articles that go along with it, which rely on that article. The context was added so the reader understands what is going on, which is perfectly acceptable in a complex article. Children's hospital's have nothing to do with the Platt report, are only tangentially linked. The core of it is attachement theory. I don't think you grasped that. The reader needs to know why it was created. The summary article you've completed on different reports, for example Cumberlege Report 1986 don't tell the reader exactly why the report was written. There is no context there and the single sentence you put in, doesn't cover it, by a long shot. When writing about reports, you need to tell the reader exactly why the report was written in the first place. There is pre-conditions on that article to tell the reader of the events leading up to the report and why they occurred and post conditions. Its a complete mystery on that article. Don't change it again, your not a good copyeditor and I don't trust that you even know what your doing. scope_creepTalk 21:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I won't edit the article again, I have no interest in an edit war, I was just trying to clarify. If you believe that some context is lacking from the article on other reports (Cumberlege has only just been created, I don't doubt there is more to say) and would like to contribute, please do. Zeromonk (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The platt report article, the scope on it is about the discovery of attachment theory which took about 50-60 years for it to be worked out, it was very complex and the report is the lead up to that, part of the whole discovery process, and what happened there and showing what needed to be done when they discovered it. Because it a complex series of events, you can't just present an summary article, which explains what the report is, in a sentence or two with some conclusions to the reader. It doesn't work. It needs real context, detailed background information, so they understand what it is, step by step. Essentially, the more complex the subject, the more context you have to put in, so the reader understands what is being presented. It took me ages to find that out and it was only when a women came in asking about it, did I discover there wasn't enough information there for them to understand it. The whole article was wasted. The context on the Cumberlege article is fairly basic, but important nevertheless. I hope that helps and gives you some explanation of why I think it is important it stays together. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]