Template:Did you know nominations/Attraction

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Multiple issues

Attractiveness

(

)

... that values and personality are more important predictors of attraction in men?

Created/expanded by Anusan.rasalingam (talk), Jonshap92 (talk). Nominated by Anusan.rasalingam (talk) at 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, this is not a good enough article at all (with my apologies to the authors). It's a huge concept that's dealt with in a piecemeal-fashion. It confuses terminology--for instance, "Same-Sex Attraction" is hardly on the same phenomenological and scientific field as "Visual attractiveness" (and note that the latter section consists solely of a poppy sub-section "Eye candy"), it may well put the cart before the horse in a somewhat mysteriously titled section "Major Antecedents of Attraction", and it seems like a haphazard collection of somewhat verified terms and concepts. It's not well-written either: the lead summarizes nothing and while it mentions "tourist attraction", the article only discusses (without explicitly stating what it does) forms of attractions (or things possibly and sometimes not at all related to attraction) among human beings (animals have it too). What it does is take little bits of verified information about smaller concepts and attempts to fit it under a larger umbrella, but no coverage (to stick with the metaphor) is provided by the lead. Besides that, the mechanics of writing are deficient here: there are fragmentary sentences, punctuation errors, odd transitions, unreliable sources and incorrect references (this is reference 2, and reference 3 is completely incorrect)--there is no way that this is ready for the front page, if it will ever be. And the hook is opaque: more important than what? What does "in men" even mean? In the process of men being attractive? or being attracted? and by whom--women? other men? animals? Sorry, but no. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)