- 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 Fuebaey (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Negativity bias
edit- ... that people tend to exhibit a negativity bias, such that negative experiences have a greater impact than positive experiences on psychological states and processes?
5x expanded by Cmiddlebrooks (talk). Self nominated at 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC).
I see you nominated the article to be a Good Article. The expansion is more than twofold and close to threefold; it is not fivefold. If the article becomes a Good Article, then the problem will be solved. Otherwise, the nomination will likely fail. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I was a little unsure about this "fivefold" issue. Technically, I rewrote the entire article because the contents prior to my edits were either factually incorrect or completely irrelevant to the topic. So, no, the size of the article isn't a fivefold increase relative to what was there before, but it is all completely new. Does that not matter? If not, then how would I go about revoking the nomination? And should this also be removed from "DYK"? Thanks! Cmiddlebrooks (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:DYK rules, an expansion must be fivefold. You still have time to add more prose, but I'm not confident that you would make it. The 16 October 2014 version was 4511 prose bytes, and the current version is 14kb in prose. Another version should be 22.5kb or 23kb in prose. However, no need to revoke the nomination or withdraw just yet. This nomination will be re-reviewed if the article becomes a Good Article. Waiting for someone to review the GA nomination will take a while, however. --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, I guess I'll leave the nomination be then, although I hesitate to waste any reviewer's time if it's unlikely to be approved... I'll see if there's anything I can add without it being superfluous. Thanks! Cmiddlebrooks (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:DYK Eligibility criteria 1d, this is a new article. I have compared edit history of last edit before this editor took over with the current article. Replacement of the prior editor's text shows at least a 90% rewrite.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I see efforts on User:Cmiddlebrooks/Negativity bias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'm still not thoroughly convinced. The user has stopped working on the draft and copied-and-pasted the content into an old article that has existed for a long time. Somehow, it's hard to tell. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I hope it's not inappropriate for me to comment here, but I had originally set up the sandbox in order to draft my future changes, but then I was told that I should actually only be doing that if I was starting a new, nonexistent article, and that I should instead be making the edits directly to the article itself. I kept using the Cmiddlebrooks/Negativity bias page to test my references and such, to make they were coded correctly, but further edits were only made to the article directly after first being drafted in Microsoft Word. I also didn't want to completely overwrite the article in one swoop, so as not to step on anyone's toes, so I imported changes by section, but all within a 24 hour span so that it would still count as the first of the 7-day eligibility. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the rules (first time editing/writing on Wikipedia!), but I just wanted to clarify re: the user page usage. Cmiddlebrooks (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I stand by my comments. Nevertheless, you didn't do wrong. You can ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving Wikipedia. If anybody else disagrees with my reviews, then don't hesitate to use {{subst:DYK?again}} alongside explanations. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What defines new? The GA nomination was withdrawn, but the concept of new article in this case is too complex for me. But, in the eyes of mine, the article may not reach fivefold. But with copy-and-paste stuff offline, probably another reviewer can see a light different from mine. --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The article does not technically meet the 5X expansion requirement. However, a common sense exception has historically been made for very long articles and extensive rewrites. I feel the (technically) 3X expansion is sufficient here considering most of the original text was deleted. Essentially, 10-11k of the current 12k is new text. No other problems detected - no copyright violation or serious policy problems; article is well referenced to reliable sources. Suggested fact is interesting & has been verified by provided inline citations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
