Template:Did you know nominations/Dodo bird verdict

Length

Dodo bird verdict
Created/expanded by Vmansoor (talk). Nominated by Ltilmans (talk) at 21:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that there is a highly contentious debate in clinical psychology known as the "Dodo Bird Verdict" (namesake pictured)?


 * Symbol possible vote.svg 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 Manual of Style, including but not limited to Manual of Style/Layout, Manual of Style/Lead section, 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)
 * "Controversial" could work. I slightly changed the wording of the intro sentence. -Anagogist (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Article has been edited by several people, but it still fails 5x expansion test and other issues are still unresolved. I see no reason to continue to carry this here. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)