Talk:Affect labeling

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that posting your feelings on social media is a form of affect labeling, and may help reduce emotional distress? Source: Fan et al. 2019
  • ALT1:... that verbalizing your feelings is formally known as affect labeling, a type of emotion regulation? Source: Torre et al. 2018

Created by Sdolbier (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC).

The article is well written with enough references, the size of the article is 34,970 bytes. The article is also considered for good article nominee. However the article is one month old indeed. Well the user is a newbie to Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Abishe: - it was moved to mainspace on Nov 21, so it was only 5 days old when it was nominated. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Article is and long enough and moved to mainspace in a timely manner. User is QPQ exempt. No pings on Earwigs. Hooks are interesting and short enough for DYK; AGF on offline source. Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next week or so. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well-referenced in general but there are some things in the lead which don't appear in the body of the text, as far as I can tell - for instance: "Affect labeling is an extension of the age-old idea that talking about one's feelings can make oneself feel better." This claim is not really cited in the 'History' section or elsewhere, and though by my judgement it's probably true, I think it does require a reliable source, especially for the "age-old" part. Age-old is a pretty vague word and leads to questions - did the Romans feel this way? Did the Qin Chinese? Etc etc. The lead description of affect labeling as 'an implicit emotional regulation strategy characterized as "putting feelings into words" ' appears to quote from Source 1 (Torre/Lieberman) but the phrase does not actually appear in the article body. In general, I would encourage leaving direct quotations from sources out of the first sentence or paragraph of the article and instead rephrasing to Wiki summary style.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No obvious copyright violations detected automatically or in a manual check. Provisional pass..
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A - no images for the time being
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are no images or illustrations in this article. While I understand that this is a tough article to illustrate, if anything can be added, that would certainly be an improvement. Perhaps a simplified diagram of the meaning of affect labeling for the lead, or images illustrating some of the techniques used in affect labeling (journaling, etc).
	7. Overall assessment.

• Just a FYI that the nominator is a student editor and they have not been around for a while. I left a note at there talk age User talk:Sdolbier#Affect Labelling a week or so ago asking if they were still around. Unless they happen to check in you may not get much of a response. I will ping Ian (Wiki Ed) as they may be able to reach them. AIRcorn (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, Aircorn. I have emailed them. Hopefully we will hear from them soon. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello, thanks for the feedback! I made this article for a class, and I don't really have the time to continue working on it. As for the current comments, the "age-old" quote was in reference to the use of diaries and therapy, which I think have citations, but if this phrase is too strong, then maybe we can just remove the "age-old" and have it read, "extension of the idea...". For the "putting feelings into words", I felt that was the best easy-to-understand definition of Affect labeling, and I wouldn't really know what to change it to. I also can't think of any images that would work well in the article, and unfortunately I don't have the time to search for any. Thank you so much for the review though! Sdolbier (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

      Sdolbier, thanks for letting me know! I'll decide what to do with the article shortly - most likely it will not pass in its current state, unfortunately. I may make some edits/improvements myself if I have time. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

      I will fail this article due to the lack of a nominator. Though I plan to make some changes myself afterwards, I don't think they'll be sufficient to bring it to GA status. The biggest issue is that this is a WP:ORPHAN, so I'll try and fix that. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)