Talk:Social connection

I will be giving this page a big update!

Hi there! I am a social psychology graduate student who studies the neuroscience of social connection. I'm excited to add to this page, and will be doing that substantially over the next couple weeks. Just wanted to give a heads up to anyone else who may be editing - open to your feedback/ideas :) --Laurisela (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for GA

Laurisela, if you would like to have this article passed for GA, you might want to start by removing any files linked inline in the article. Such files should be in reference format instead. Next, you do not need to bold any text which is not a synonym of the title. Just my two cents.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social connection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BlackfullaLinguist (talk · contribs) 12:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Excellent work on the article, I have reviewed it and have some points:

1. The lead does not adequately define the topic and has some information that may belong in the main article. The lead should identify and summarise the who (just humans? Mammals? Sentient beings?), what (what is social connection - perhaps hyperlink defining words), when (a constant? a passing feeling? subconscious, etc?), why (theories on the why? evolution, survival, better living?), and the how (summary sentence/s of brain and hormone information in main article). Also, how does this article connect to whatever science it belongs to? The lead has no mention of its broad ramifications in its respective field.

2. The structure of the article needs some work, some sections have no or barely an introducing paragraph. see: Social_connection#Measures This section needs explanation and expanding. The 'A basic need' section reads more like a history of the development of the theory.

3. Further to the above two, without a proper lead with an adequate definition, I can not determine if the article is treating the topic broadly enough. Though judging by the sections present, I feel a good framework is there for a broad coverage, though it may need a section on the theories of its evolution and history, i.e. - why does it exist?

Based on all of the above points, I do not feel the article currently meets the Good Article criteria. I will review the article again in 7 days and close the review if the necessary changes have not been made. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)