Talk:Intensive interaction

Improvements to the article

Following a request from user 'Intensive Interaction Leeds' regarding how he might proceed in improving the article, here is some text copied from my response to his request (made at the COI noticeboard and on his talk page):

(a) the article needs to be re-written so that it doesn't appear to have been cribbed from the Intensive Interaction Institute website,

(b) it should probably be much shorter than at present,

(c) an encyclopaedia article isn't the place for a list of 30 specialist works, it should be replaced (maybe keep 2 or 3 key works) with a link to the institute bibliography,

and (d) the three [since reduced to two] references cited in the article are insufficient for an article of this length.

Contributions from specialists are welcomed in Wikipedia, but there are pitfalls that need to be avoided (including WP:SELFCITE, which could be easily negotiated here by actioning point (c) above).

In addition to those points, there are long outstanding issues with this article detailed in the template at the top of the article, namely...

1) 'needs more citations for verification'

2) 'contains content that reads like an advertisement'

3) 'possibly contains original research'

For clarity, point 1 refers to citations within the text of the article to verify individual elements of text, not to the inclusion of specialist works located at the end of the article in the bibliography.

Point 2 is probably a by-product of the fact that most of the article seems to have originated as a lightly revised version of material located in the 'Find Out More' section of the website of the Intensive Interaction Institute. As I mentioned above, this needs to be dramatically changed, including for tone.

The most obvious elements that need to be removed, and which create tone issues are, I'd suggest:

History (paragraph 1): remove the word 'effective' (it is unnecessary and self-evident in that context).

History (paras 2-6): these are far too detailed for an encyclopaedia entry and should either be removed wholesale or replaced with a brief para to give the general gist. If the phrase 'these having previously been absent from their lives' is to be retained it should be reworded in a less emotive tone. The phrase 'created a lot of interest across the UK' should definitely be removed, as claims like this are very difficult to prove in independent sources.

History (para 8): the following text is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and should be removed: 'Interest worldwide is growing and developing. There are a range of books and other materials now available and a burgeoning community of Intensive Interaction practitioners.'

Returning to the issues mentioned on the template at the top of the article, Point 3 (original research) is probably a by-product of the fact that there are insufficient citations within the text, thus making most of the material essentially unsourced.

As a general observation, the Intended Use section is far too long, detailed and list-based and should be reduced to a brief paragraph of coherent text which gives the general gist.

In relation to the whole article, it is intended for the general reader (not for practitioners or other interested parties). The general reader would benefit from the article being as concise as possible but clearly written and informative, including just the key points about what Intensive Interaction is and a brief note about its history. The non-critical further detail can then be sourced at the institute website by those wishing to investigate further.

Finally, there seems to be a slight disconnect between user Intensive Interaction Leeds' claim (on their talkpage) that they have been 'trying [...] to add both increased detail and accuracy to the current poor quality content' and the fact that most of the article paraphrases from the Intensive Interaction Institute website (which might reasonably be assumed to be an authoritative source).

While it would be good to take the article away from its current position of paraphrasing institute sources, that will need to be done by adding new (in-text) citations to support the changes (otherwise it will immediately begin to look like own research).

Hopefully these notes are of some assistance. Evidently there are significant improvements that can be made to this article, in terms both of content and of bringing it in line with Wikipedia norms. Axad12 (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this - this is exactly the clear guidance I was asking for. When I have time I will follow this guidance as recommended. Thank you again for your time and trouble. G.S.R.Firth (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)