Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Political Cognition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 06:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Political Cognition

(
)
  • ... that political cognition refers to the study of how individuals come to understand the political world, and how this understanding leads to political behavior? Some of the processes studied under the umbrella of political cognition include attention, interpretation, judgement, and memory.

Created by Vicunab (talk). Self-nominated at 18:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

  • @Vicunab:, there are a few issues with this nomination. The first is that it was nominated fourteen days after the article was moved to mainspace from your user area, rather than the seven days required for new nominations. The second is that the hook is way too long at 289 characters; it needs to be fewer than 200 characters, must be interesting to a wide audience, and should be punchy if at all possible. Two-sentence hooks won't fly: the hook must start with an ellipsis and end in the question mark, as if it were ending part of a sentence beginning with "Did you know ...". (They also almost invariably start with a "that" after the ellipsis.) I think, given that you're a new Wikipedian, we can stretch the lateness of your nomination by those seven days. The hook, however, definitely needs fixing. Please submit a new, much shorter alternate hook next to the "ALT1" header I've added above below your original hook, which I have struck. Thank you very much, and best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that political cognition refers to the study of how individuals come to understand the political world, and how this leads to political behavior? --evrik (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • evrik, I don't see how ALT1 meets the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion: this is a simple definition, and not what we go look for here at DYK. (I would have suggested just using the first sentence of the original hook if I thought it could fly on its own.) To continue the review, the article is certainly long enough, and we can grant an exception for the late submission. There doesn't appear to be any copyvio; I haven't checked for close paraphrasing. However, there are issues with the sourcing: a number of paragraphs don't have any inline source citations, which needs to be addressed for DYK, and several citations only cover the first sentence or two of a paragraph, which is far from ideal. There are also a number of external links in the body of the text, another issue. I am reluctant to take the time for an in-depth review given that this was written as part of a course, Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCLA/Psychology 220A (Fall, 2019), which ended on December 16. Since Vicunab never responded to the earlier part of the review, I am not optimistic that any response will be forthcoming, especially now that the course has concluded. Pinging course liaison Ian (Wiki Ed) to see whether they're willing to do follow-ups here to address issues raised in a full review, or even those raised above regarding the sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Elysia (Wiki Ed), thanks for the two new hooks. I think ALT3 makes an interesting one. As I noted above, the DYK criteria expect at least one inline source citation per paragraph: I have indicated (with "citation needed" templates) where additional source citations are needed. One of these is actually at the end of a paragraph that already has a citation about halfway through, but the claim there is so extraordinary that I felt a source citation is required. Once these sourcing issues have been addressed, the review can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • --evrik (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Review: New hooks proposed as very interesting. The article's date is not a concern anymore per above. Hooks are cited, sources are reliable and accepted in good faith, article is stable, has no outstanding tags, no image to review. Now, I did add a few [Citation needed] templates because I felt like large chunks of a paragraph were left unsourced, and then the following paragraphs covered different topics and I wasn't too sure if the sources used for those cited the previous material. Please add references were the tags were added and ping me when this is done. Article is ripe for promotion as it stands. Great job here. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging Elysia (Wiki Ed) to address the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • MX Alrighty, how's it looking now? Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Elysia (Wiki Ed): Looks good now. Thank you for taking care of it. Previous review stands. On a site note, I would recommend the lead be expanded a bit more that way it doesn't get flagged along the way, but that isn't a requirement for this review. Great job here! MX (✉ • ✎) 19:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Political_Cognition&oldid=934567365"