Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Attachment theory/archive2

Attachment theory

Nominator(s): Fainites, User:Jean Mercer

• Featured article candidates/Attachment theory/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Attachment theory/archive2

• Featured article review/Attachment theory/archive1

This article was nominated fairly recently in September. It closed after 6 weeks with one support and several reviewers with incomplete reviews. Ealdgyth had done her stuff on links and references. There was also an unstruck image issue. That image has been replaced, (the moose). Two reviewers have now completed their reviews here. I appreciate it is long but fervent copyediting has slimmed it down by about 14 kbs. I believe it now meets the criteria.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) not met. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved 2c issues are now listed at the review's talk page to avoid clutter! Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - This article clearly introduces the reader to a broad topic in an organized and coherent fashion. Any issues I had with it have been resolved. Thanks for your hard work on this Fainites! Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Good alt text is present (thanks), except that alt text is missing for Image:Child development stages.svg. Please fix this by appending "|alt=Alt text" to the second line of Template:Child development diagram. The alt text should describe the whole diagram; please see WP:ALT#Diagrams for guidance. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried adding alt text where you suggest but it doesn'y seem to show up. Is there a problem trying to add alt text to what is a navbox that is already full of ppiped links? Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your addition worked for me; I expect it was a caching problem of some sort? Anyway, thanks for doing it. Eubulides (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments will jot notes here. pending a couple of minor tweaks below. Well done.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

any benefit of "proximity" over the plainer "closeness"?

It's just that it's the word that always has been and still is used. I don't think it's too esoteric is it? I could wiktionary it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the benefit and reason for the term is it leaves out psychological closeness and is technically more specific. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good enough for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(note to self, have read down to Significance of attachment patterns - looking good but as I am familiar with jargon I might miss less accessible bits. Too tired to do this justice now. Back tomorrow) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not very keen on this Around 65% of children have a secure classification in the general population, the remaining 35% divided between the insecure classifications. Do you mind if I change it again?Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

fine by me, you're welcome to tweak any prose tweaks I make which you feel change meaning inadvertently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Should specify that the AAI is primarily a research tool I think (unless this has changed in the last 10 years (?)). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It may also be used to refer to proposed new classification systems put forward by theorists in the field. - needs a ref methinks..

Done. F.

I'll tweak the AAI bit tonight.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• We resolved everything at the last FAC, lets spare my eyes and has anything in the sourcing changed? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two have been removed but no new ones have been added other than another ref to Cassidy and Shaver.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I've already commented in the FAC review of the first nomination, which I supported. This version is much improved. I will soon be adding the Wikilink for Dorothy Burlingham in the text, a page I created a while ago, which someone will do well to expand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I've begun a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - you can see extensive commenting on the talk page that i've already done, and Fainites has patiently and diligently addressed them all. This is complex subject that is quite a challenge to get up to FAC, and I think the job is well done. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image comments—
  • File:Moose-Imprinting-sr81-15.jpg: Is there any record that "Dr. Alexander Minaev kindly granted permissions to use the photo for any purpose including commercial, provided appropriate attribution"? Shouldn't this be on OTRS?
  • File:Laughing couple.jpg is no longer available under cc-by-2.0, but cc-by-nc-nd-2.0.
  • The rest look good (no pun intended). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)