Template:Did you know nominations/Dodo bird verdict
- The following discussion 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: rejected by Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Length
Dodo bird verdict
[edit]
- ... that there is a highly contentious debate in clinical psychology known as the "Dodo Bird Verdict" (namesake pictured)?
Created/expanded by Vmansoor (talk). Nominated by Ltilmans (talk) at 21:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a number of issues with this article. It's the first contribution by a university student, so it's easy to understand that the new user may need help learning Wikipedia protocols.
- First, it's a wee bit short of being a 5x expansion, as required for DYK. One contributing factor is that some of the prose content of the previous version may have been discarded during the recent expansion. It's possible that the minimum length could be achieved by restoring some discarded content.
- Another concern is article format. Proper formatting is not a requirement for DYK, but this article has a more issues than I'd like to see in an article that is featured on the main page. I've fixed some formatting issues, inserted some wikilinks that got eliminated in the recent expansion, etc., but there are number of problems with basic things -- like lack of spacing between the names of cited authors, that I consider excessive. (I'm also very annoyed to see individual researchers referred to by name in the article body, such as "Singer" or "Lambert", without giving their first names.)
- All of the sources for the article were represented as offline paper publications, but I know that many or most are available online, at least to people with appropriate access. I've restored a doi and URL for a couple of the sources that were linked in the previous version of the article, and I'd feel more comfortable with this if doi's were provided for other sources that have them.
- I have a general concern with the tone of the article and the perception that it includes some original research; lacking access to most of the sources, this is difficult to evaluate. Comparing this with the one online source I accessed, I was pleased to that I did not see evidence of close paraphrasing.
- The proposed hook doesn't work for me: I don't see a source cited in the article that identifies this as as "highly contentious" debate. That's a hard kind of hook to support. I think there are possibilities, however, in a hook about the meaning of the term or its Lewis Carroll derivation.
- Bottom line: Article needs a lot of cleanup and needs to be a bit longer, and a different hook is needed. Regarding cleanup, it would be helpful for the article creator to get acquainted with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think the wording of the opening sentence "is a wildly debated topic" should be changed to more objective phrasing. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
