Template:Did you know nominations/Muscle Dysmorphia


 * 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 SL93 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No edits to fix issues after a long enough span of time.

Muscle Dysmorphia

 * ... that people who suffer from muscle dysmorphia generally spend more than three hours per day thinking about becoming more muscular and believe that they have little control over their weightlifting activities? Source: D., Edwards, C., & Cranswick, I. (2016). Muscle dysmorphia: Current insights. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 10."


 * ALT1... that individuals with muscle dysmorphia generally spend more than three hours per day thinking about becoming more muscular and believe that they have lost control over their weightlifting activities? Source: D., Edwards, C., & Cranswick, I. (2016). Muscle dysmorphia: Current insights. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 10."

5x expanded by Ivid11 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article has been 5x expanded. Hook and article are length compliant. No image. QPQ done. Hook is NPOV and cited to a RS inline. No obvious copyvio. All other criteria appear met. Link not bolded in hook, I took the initiative of bolding it as a non-controversial edit. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, at 208 characters, the hook is over the maximum of 200 at DYK. Ivid11, please supply a new, shorter hook. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you BlueMoonset! I have made the adjustments. Ivid11 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to do full review now that ALT1 (200 characters exactly) has been proposed; previous reviewer has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so it's best if we start from scratch. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Full Review: Items marked in  must be addressed before the nomination can proceed.  Items marked in  are fine.  Items marked in  have issues noted that will not prevent the DYK being ticked to proceed on to the prep areas, but have issues that can be addressed to improve the article and or might be noted by the nominator for future article development.
 * DYKcheck finds that the expansion was from 1602 characters to its present 6760 characters. So, the expansion is not sufficient to qualify as x5, a minimum of 8010 prose characters are required.  However, the rules do not count characters in dot-points and lists, so reworking the text to turn the dot point sections into regular prose should easily address this problem.
 * Expansion was carried out in a single edit by on 25 April 2017 and nominated the same day, so no problem with the 7-day requirement.
 * The reference list contains details on each source, no bare URLs, and the minimum requirement for an average of one reference per paragraph is easily met. However:
 * DOI links would be helpful (not a DYK requirement, just an observation)
 * The Tod, Edwards, and Cranswick reference given above to support the hook is also reference 9 in the article and is used 23 times but is not, as shown, on page 10 of volume 9. It is actually page 179-188 according to your NLM reference, also confirmed by the, and the article is CC-BY-NC freely licensed, so a link to the full text (either by  or to this PDF from the publisher or this PDF from the NLM) would be appropriate and desirable.  Ref 39 is also missing authors.
 * Some journal titles are given in full, some are abbreviated – consistency is desirable.
 * Ivid11, it is worth noting this diff where a referencing duplication is correct, for future editing.
 * It is also worth noting that multiple references are usually listed in numerical order. For example, the dot point "Behavioral Addiction" begins "Others have argued for Muscle Dysmorphia it to be reclassified as a behavioral addiction.[9][12][18][14]"  – the references should be [9][12][14][18], and this reference sequencing issue occurs repeatedly.  Again, not a grounds for holding up a nomination, but something to note.
 * The article is "Start Class" according to the talk page, and I think it is above that. In any case, clearly not a stub so it satisfies DYK requirements.  It also has plenty of incoming links from article space and so the article is clearly.
 * The article has a lede which summarises the article, but none of the references in the lede are used in the article itself, which suggests that the lede contains information not in the article, or at least, based on different sources. Properly, all refs in the lede should appear in the body of the article as well.  Sub-headings should be in sentence case, according to the Manual of Style, so "Alternative classifications" rather than "Alternative Classifications", and I have made a series of tweaks including the MOS ones.  A copyedit would be good, perhaps make a request to the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors?  In any case, the article is neutral and policy-compliant, so it meets DYK requirements.
 * The hook fact is in the Tod et al. (2016, p. 181) reference and is in the article.
 * At 200 characters, the hook is technically short enough, but I suggest shortening it to something like:


 * ALT1a: ... that muscle-dysmorphic individuals generally spend at least three hours a day thinking about becoming more muscular?
 * ALT1b: ... that muscle-dysmorphic individuals generally spend at least three hours a day thinking about becoming more muscular and wear baggy clothes to hide their bodies?
 * Something shorter is often hookier. For ALT1b, a "baggy clothes" comment from Tod et al. is needed in the article.  I'm not saying "no" to a hook with the weightlifting too, but I find the idea that people seeking muscles hide their physiques more interesting / surprising than that their weightlifting gets out of control.
 * An Earwig check finds a possible violation between the article lede and this source, but the latter was posted June 2016 and the lede was present on WP prior to that so it is WP that has been copied. No plagiarism issues noted.
 * According to QPQ check, this is Ivid11's first DYK nomination, so no QPQ review required.


 * Symbol question.svg Overall, this is close but needs the length to be addressed by reworking so the dot points become prose, and small ref fixes. Ivid11, this is an impressive expansion, well-referenced and clearly reflecting considerable research and work, well done!  Your input is needed on my hook suggestions, too (ALT1b would need an article tweak).  EdChem (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It has now been over a month since the last activity on this nomination. The nominator hasn't edited since the end of April and it doesn't look like anyone else is volunteering to bring this article up to scratch, so I suggest this be closed. 97198 (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)