Template:Did you know nominations/Elissa P. Benedek


 * 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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Elissa P. Benedek

 * ... that Dr. Elissa P. Benedek, the primary psychiatric witness for Eric Foretich in his 1978 child custody proceeding, was accused of child abuse by Foretich's ex-wife and of perjury by his former mother-in-law? Source: "Antonia Morgan filed a complaint against Benedek with the American Psychiatric Association, denying many of the statements ... Benedek, who had been hired as an expert witness by Foretich, said that at one point during her series of interviews, Elizabeth Morgan accused her, too, of making inappropriate physical approaches toward Hilary" (The Washington Post
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alabang–Zapote Road

5x expanded by Yoninah (talk). Self-nominated at 20:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, having been more than 5X expanded (8.7) on the day of its nomination for DYK. Articles length of 4700 readable characters well exceeds the required 1500.  The article is written in a neutral manner, uses numerous inline citations for each paragraph within the article body.  The hits on Earwig result from long proper names ("Center for Forensic Psychiatry") or from phrasing which can not be reduced or modified ("a residential treatment facility for youth") without changing the meaning.  The thought flow is entirely independent.  No image to check against.  QPQ done.  The hook is interesting (too interesting, read on...) and within format.  The hook is directly and immediately tied to citations, which are AGF (paywall).  My concern is that the hook. although factual, "focuses on a negative aspect" of a living person.  Neither the hook nor the article claims the subject is guilty of the charges, but neither does it say she is innocent.  I don't think I'd like this hook if I were in the subject's shoes.  There are several "firsts" and "near-firsts" that would perhaps make a more neutral hook?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I didn't think the hook violated BLP, just that it was a bit sensational. Here is an alt:
 * ALT1: ... that when Dr. Elissa P. Benedek was named president of the American Psychiatric Association in 1990, she was only the second woman to fill that post since the group's founding in 1844? Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg, that checks out perfectly. Hook withing policy and directly cited by reliable source.  Article is well written, interesting, factual, and deserving of mainpage exposure.  PS, you didn't violate BLP at all, it was a perfectly factual hook.  It was an interpretation of "unduly negative aspect" on my part, a judgement call only.  If there was more context (linking it to Morgan v. Foretich or something to indicate why this accusation was perhaps something other than routine (horrible thought, but true) child abuse) I might have felt differently.  Thanks for your patience and, as always, your plethora of high-quality volunteer work here.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)