User talk:Cait ash/sandbox

Hi Cait ash,

I see you have started some rough drafting and plans for your article on imaginary friends. Editing Wikipedia is surprisingly difficult, but it seems you have a fairly good start. Do you have any more articles/books from which you could find information from? I find that it is easier to start writing when you have something to go off of.

The definition of imaginary friend has been re-vamped, but I am unsure about why parts of the original definition were ignored. Are imaginary friends not at least psychological, though perhaps not a phenomenon? Some of the words used in the original definition definitely have some merit and could be used to your advantage in creating a new explanation of what an imaginary friend is. I understand I may be jumping the gun by commenting on your edits as what most of what you have is preliminary, but it's just something to consider as you continue working on the article.

With regard to elaborating on the function of imaginary friends, perhaps just start by finding some broad research (easier said than done, I know!) on their function. There may be hundreds of functions, I am not sure. Depending on the number of functions you find, you could perhaps find a way to efficiently list them if there are not very many. And if there are numerous functions of imaginary friends, perhaps try to group them into useful categories such as "provide buffer from negative emotions, experiences, or environments," this would cover a range of functions that the imaginary friend could present. Do imaginary friends expel boredom? Are they a gateway to creativity in children? Maybe these are some of the functions that you can try to group together (if they are functions at all), or "blanket" describe through a broad description of function. I hope this is somewhat helpful.

Here is a review article that I think/hope will be helpful to you! http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/423-taylor07.pdf Scout37 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Cait ash,
Good start on this page. A list of things to consider (I do realize that this is in progress, but it is better not to wait on Wiki!).

1. Keep anything good in the existing page. I am reasonably happy with the existing first paragraph. Only add useful things to it such as corrections. Don't jump into picky points of reinterpreting or defining the concept right off. The lead paragraph should introduce the concept so that if it is the only thing people read, they come away with a good overall sense. They mostly won't care about debates about companions versus impersonation.
2. Be careful when you say "our culture". Wikipedia is very sensitive to culture specific claims being presented as general. If you mean Western culture, say so. This will raise the question whether there is any research to report from non-Western cultures.
3. I like your clarification about typical development and psychopathology.
4. I am still not sure what else in the page you are planning to address. I'll drop back in mid week to see how things are going.
   

Paula Marentette (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cait ash, Here are a few things that you could consider while finishing up your additions to the Imaginary friend article. A number of these comments are modelled after comments and advice I received from Ian and Marentette while I was completing my work on Cognitive load.

1. Structurally, the lead should be a summary of all the elements of the article. Depending on how substantial the length of the section is in the article, you may only have to write a sentence or two summarizing each section. Marentette gave me these links as an example of good leads: Autism and Schizophrenia - they are both Good Articles. You can also take a look at the lead I created if you need more ideas on how to create the lead: Cognitive load.
2. As Marentette mentioned above, I think you should try to keep some parts of the lead as they are in the original article. Sprinkle a few of your additions throughout, but ensure that they are necessary to explain what an imaginary friend is or add to the summaries of the sections of the article. If you feel that another section should be added to further explain the psychology behind imaginary friends, then by all means do so! You have some good points in the first and second paragraph that aren't about research, nor would they fit well in the lead, but are still relevant details about the psychology of imaginary friends. These points are important and I hope you can find a way to put them into the article some how.

Here are some more specific 'nitpicky' changes that you might want to consider as well:

1. In your first sentence be convincing " imaginary companions can be people or..." Say what imaginary friends ARE. This is the first and possibly only sentence that people will read, so try to get the information down in a simple and clear way.
2. The 3rd sentence is wordy and too complex. Pare it down/and or use different terminology.
3. "Once children reach school age boys and girls are equally likely to have an imaginary companion." Need a comma in here
4. The second last sentence in the first paragraph is a bit confusing. It makes sense but I had to read it more then once.
5. Good work on the last 2 paragraphs. A few commas should be added, but the content is well referenced and understandable!

You have some very good changes to make, I just hope that you are able to complete them before the deadline! Good luck and I look forward to seeing the final product on the main space. Scout37 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gesture Development

Cait ash, Nice to see you back working on things in Wikipedia. This looks like a good plan. I want you to be careful about second language acquisition - this needs to be considered separately - as we are discussing in class, because age of acquisition affects how acquisition unfolds. This may be, likely is, true for the relationship between gesture and language too. Your first section provides an overview of the possible links between gesture and speech. Is it possible to summarize that quickly on the development page, and be sure to focus on the relevance of this idea specifically for development. Perhaps the gesture page itself discusses this idea and it can be linked. Paula Marentette (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)