Template:Did you know nominations/Approaches to Prejudice Reduction
- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 21:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Approaches to prejudice reduction
[edit]- ... that there are approaches to prejudice reduction that are not commonly known?
Created/expanded by Secastel (talk). Self nominated at 23:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC).
The article is long enough (15,107 chars when created and currently 14,567) and new - created on 22 November and nominated 26 November. Each para has at least one citation and multiple sources are cited but it's difficult to assess for copyvio or close paraphrase because all the cited sources are printed, none are online. There are a number of statements which are unsupported by citations, e.g."It is not entirely clear how these results translate when considering existing social groups in real-world settings", or "As most of these studies consist of one-time sessions, it is unclear how long the positive effects of the strategies last."
- The hook itself is correctly formatted but I am unable to establish where it is mentioned in the article. Sections deal with various approaches to prejudice reduction but I can see nothing specific to support the hook. Maybe one of the cited statements could be used as an alternative hook but at the moment I can't pass this for DYK. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have done a final ping to the nominator's talk page, though since his or her most recent edit was December 9, I'm not holding out much hope. The issues are significant enough—especially that the hook fact does not explicitly appear in the article—that something must be done soon. I'm planning on closing the nomination early next week unless the nominator posts here before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Closing. Nominator has not responded (nor edited since December 9), and article (which also hasn't been edited since December 9) remains without specific support of the proposed hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
