BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Apr 11;19(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2264-0. Mother-infant bonding is not associated with feeding type: a community study sample. Hairston IS1,2, Handelzalts JE3, Lehman-Inbar T3, Kovo M4,5.

Overall statement or summary of the article and its findings in your own words. This article challenged the notion that breastfeeding and bonding are inextricably linked in a positive fashion within a sample of Hebrew mothers completing surveys online.

Overall strengths of the article and what impact it might have in your field
The article proceeds in a systematic and logical format. Its form follows the common conceptions of research protocol with introduction, methods, results, and conclusion. The theoretical stance is contained here as well with bonding and attachment at the core. There is a great discussion on the limitations of the study and this can be seen as an excellent source of future edits, changes, or future research. Great discussion of the psychometric properties of the instruments.

Specific comments on the weaknesses of the article and what could be done to improve it. Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1. Instruments were translated to Hebrew--this may have caused issues for participants. Perhaps an instrument that was developed in Hebrew may be useful.
2. There was no discussion of culture and its bearing on the participants' ideas, environment, mothering or ways of being.
3. A meaningful and impactful section on mothering within the country of origin would have been helpful.
4. Would like to have read a section on the piloting of the instrument with mothers and Hebrew translation. Perhaps a qualitative interview with mothers and their understanding of each question on each instrument used within the study.

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies.

1. A little more discussion of the longitudinal article for which this article is predicated on would have been nice as an overview of this article.
2. If the primary article was longitudinal, a discussion of future plans to examine different points of the longitudinal study might be helpful to mention in future research.
3. There were very few typos noticed in the study/writing.
4. The number of tables was a little distracting from the reading.