Template:Did you know nominations/Grandiose Delusions

The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Grandiose delusions

• ... that about 10% of healthy people experience grandiose delusions?

Created/expanded by Carina1205 (talk), Sazimi11 (talk), Zoono92 (talk). Nominated by Carina1205 (talk) at 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Expansion etc. is OK. But the hook is a bit awkward ("meet full criteria" sounds odd to me, but maybe that's just me)--I wonder, what if you just cut off the last part, and stop after grandiose delusions? That's kind of funny. Also, the title is unclear: plural of singular? Then, the article needs a scrubbing. I made a few edits and a suggestion or two. Start by doing all the citations in templates; some aren't, and such inconsistencies need to be cleaned up. Also, the first sentence needs tweaking. So, start with some cleanup and drop me a line when that's taken care of. I'm looking at the rest and will look some more. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Note what I did with two or three of the citations to Knowles (don't know if there are more). Note that authors' initials are done in different ways in the citations--sometimes with periods and spaces, sometimes without. Find out which way of referencing is standard (and when the other names are omitted and replaced with "et al") and do that consistently for all of them. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds good without the last part as well, so I think you are right, we can shorten it. The title is plural, as one may have multiple delusions. As for the references, I will fix those right now. Thank you! Carina1205 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I put all the remaining references in templates. Could you take a look and let me know if there is anything else you would like me to do? Carina1205 (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still making copyedits, for grammatical and other reasons--that shouldn't be the case. I just saw "Arch Gen Psychiatry" in a citation--all those titles should be written out fully and be wikilinked. My remark on first names and initials also still needs to be addressed: reference 9 has first names spelled out, reference 10 and 11 has no periods after an initial, references 12 and 13 do. At least the initials and periods need to be made consistent. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we fixed everything this time. Please take a look and thank you so much for being patient with us! Carina1205 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• But do me a favor--add the appropriate wikilinks for the journals (see my last few edits) and go through one more time just to make sure. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh Thank you So Much!! And we'll definitely make sure to do that iA:) Infact right now :D Zoono92 (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Done! added wikilinks to all the journal pages that exist :) Zoono92 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

One more question, after you indicate that the nomination has passed at the top of the review, do you also promote it to the prep areas or do we have to wait for someone else to do that? Thanks so much. Carina1205 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No one who has approved an article should promote it; the promoter should have had nothing to do with the review or the article itself. It's another layer of checking. Similarly, reviewers should not review the alternate hooks that they themselves propose. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)