Talk:Free play

Free play is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} at 03:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Spontaneous and self-directed activity of children

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Nominator: MolecularPilot (talk · contribs) 03:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking on this article per our exchange discussed in the Discord.

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses no fair use media.

Lead

-Looks good

Key Elements

-Cardboard box example is not cited.

Developmental benefits

-Could gross and fine motor skills be clarified? The terms are a bit technical and so can be confusing to those outside of the subject area.

-Who is Colliver et al? It's not clear why they're important. Additionally, and this may just be due to subject matter inexperience, but is the et al usually included when referencing a group's paper?

-"Through free play, children gain a sense of agency, discovering their own capabilities and limits, reinforcing their sense of self-efficacy." The second half has an incomplete fragment. Reword this.

The role of the environment

-"This approach acknowledges the inherent value of the child’s own internal drive and capacity for self-directed learning." This sentence is uncited.

Misconceptions

-" Free play as unproductive or less valuable than structured activities, with many schoolchildren given less free time and fewer physical outlets at school, according to Ginsburg et al. 2007." This sentence is incomplete, and should be reworded.

-"Free play is not merely a pastime; it is a fundamental process through which children learn and develop across multiple domains" This feels a bit opinionated, and is kind of telling the readers what to do. I'd reword this to be a bit more passive, so it feels less like an order and more like it's just explaining what the sources have gone over.

Impact beyond childhood

-Looks good

Overall

@MolecularPilot: -Article overall looks solid, barring some minor issues here and there.

Spotcheck

-Will do this later today. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MolecularPilot due to time constraints on my end, would you be willing to give me the quotes that each source is clarifying in the text? If you can't it's no biggie, and I'll just the spotcheck done over the weekend when my schedule clears up. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MolecularPilot pinging as a reminder to reply to the review, both to the above and to my above critiques. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry I was busy doing the source analysis for your Pokemon FLC and totally forgot about this. Once I've posted my source analysis (it's almost done) I'll give you the quotes from the source for each in-line cite as we discussed off-wiki (didn't know there was a bot that required replies on-wiki, sorry if it looked like I was ghosting you on-wiki because we discussed off-wiki). :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MolecularPilot no worries! Just wanted to make sure all was good. There's no bot that requires it, but it's good to be transparent about off-wiki discussions on-wiki, since it helps in a lot of different ways. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]