Template:Did you know nominations/Cognitive slippage


 * 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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hook not cited; nominator inactive

Cognitive slippage

 * … that cognitive slippage is manifested in patterns of speech where categories and lists become overly broad as concepts that seem unrelated at first glance become related through tangential connections G., Dimassi, H., Monestes, J. L., & Yon, V. (2013). Criterion Validity Of The Cognitive Slippage And Schizotypal Ambivalence Scales1. Psychological Reports,113(3), 930-934. doi:10.2466/02.19.pr0.113x27z5"

5x expanded by Comahgoodness (talk). Self-nominated at 14:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg you for expanding this article! I hope you got double duty out of some of your writing :-). DYKcheck says the article was expanded 5x, so it's long enough and new enough. I didn't have time to check each source, but I spot-checked a few and they supported the statements they referenced. My main problem is that the reference for the hook doesn't contain the information in the hook. The article only defines cognitive slippage as "mild associative loosening." The hook should reflect the information in the source. A different hook would be fine too.
 * This isn't required for DYK, but in general the lead ought to summarize everything in the article. The information currently in the lead section explains what cognitive slippage is, and should be its own section. A page like panic attack has a separate section defining what it is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Reviewer has raised substantive issues here, but nominator is inactive. Marking for closure. If an uninvolved editor wants to step in and address the issues before this is actually closed, I would have no objection. Vanamonde (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)