Template:Did you know nominations/Double depression
- 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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Double depression
[edit]- ... that double depression refers to the co-existence of major depressive disorder (MDD) and persistent depressive disorder (PDD)?
Created by Dmaynd2019 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC).
@Dmaynd2019: Date and length fine however the hook fact in the article needs an inline citation. QPQ not needed as this is the nominator's first nomination. No close paraphrasing. Just needs that fixed, please ping me when it is, then I can pass this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Marking for closure as the nominator has not edited since the day of the nomination, and the issues have not been addressed. Courtesy ping The C of E. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @The C of E: isn't the hook fact cited in the first sentence under Clinical description: Individuals with double depression meet the DSM-5 classification criteria for both MDD and PDD? Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yoninah, isn't this article one of many from an unregistered college course that ran into trouble due to problematic medical sourcing? It might be a good idea to ask the medical topic authors to take a quick look before finalizing this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. After lengthy debate, the instructor conceded he'd been unaware of our standards for medical information (yet, alarmingly, has been assigning Wikipedia as coursework for six years...) and none of the entries created this term have been edited to make the corresponding changes since that discussion. So I'd think a Med project review would be a wise choice, or simply to remove the nom, since the creator/nominator hasn't engaged (no reason to force the Med project to work on a nomination if the nominator doesn't wish to.) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, I think we should reject it. And please tell the instructor to vet the articles himself before they're posted. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Very much agreed that (or going through AfC) would be desirable Yoninah, and several of us tried to convey that message (in this AfD and the last three sections on the instructor's talk page) but I'm not sure we got through. So, just so you have some flavor in case these come back to DYK, as it seems that must have been encouraged for the course (given this also happened). Innisfree987 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)