Template:Did you know nominations/Pain psychology


 * 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

All that remains after the copied and then deleted text is 173 prose characters, far too few to qualify; this does not meet DYK requirements and is being closed.

Pain psychology

 * ... that a significant number of physicians cited poor insurance coverage as a barrier for treatments related to pain psychology? Source: "Pain Psychology: A Global Needs Assessment and National Call to Action  Disclosure: Content for this article has been taken from PubMed Central from within their Open Access Subset defeating all/any copyright infringement violations.

Created by Topcipher (talk). Self-nominated at 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, hook cited. Article is well-referenced. QPQ not required as the user only has one DYK credit. Good to go. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I was going to promote this when I realised that this article is written entirely from a US perspective. The hook is inappropriate given this bias. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did consider this (as I had a similar problem with one of my other articles - BEOSP that I had tagged with Globalize/India, which I later removed as I was able to source content material that was other than India); however, I was unable to find any reliable content towards this subject from outside the US, likely because it is still, extremely under-researched in almost all other countries (especially because pain psychology is not a recognized specialty by the American Psychological Association (APA)) and in light of that, I do agree with your assessment of the article having a more US outlook (which, I would try and modulate based on the information I find) and if it helps, I propose the following alternate to the existing hook. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that a study conducted in 2016 showed that a significant number of physicians in the US cited poor insurance coverage as a barrier for treatments related to pain psychology?
 * I think ALT1 is satisfactory and gets over the problems of the original hook. However, I think the "Barriers" section of the article and its sub-sections need to make it clear who was doing the research and who the subjects of the research were. If only US doctors and patients were involved, the article needs to say so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done - note that I did intend to add the 'exact' source/study related details but had read in some of the essay/guideline (can't happen to find them now though) that it was rather recommended to only have presented the facts from said studies and accordingly cited them with verifiable/credible sources, instead of publicizing the study itself - that was my earlier rationale but given the circumstances (i.e. studies only available from US sources), I think it does indeed make perfect sense. I have now added the required details accordingly. Thanks and appreciate your consideration. Will ensure to rectify these beforehand going forward. TopCipher (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. Restoring tick for ALT1 as per Bcschneider53's review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Almost the entire article is copied from an external source - while it is properly attributed and there is no copyvio issue, there is also almost no original content. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Copying from an external source in extenso, as done here, violates our policy Copying text from other sources. I have removed this inappropriate text from the article. --Macrakis (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)