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 SL93 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
... that food psychology research has found both beneficial and harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on how people choose the food they eat? Source: "Students in this study reported significant, and often negative, changes in food choices during the pandemic compared to when on campus." [1] and "The intention to buy increased among consumers of healthy foods. [...] Consumption risk also negatively affected purchasing intention. However, buying experiences and intention to buy led to increased purchases of healthy foods compared to other goods."[2]
Comment: First DYK submission
Created by Darcyisverycute (talk). Self-nominated at 10:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC).
New and long enough. Earwigs doesn't catch anything. Close paraphrasing spot checks are good. One paragraph is unsourced- Food psychology is related to. The first citation could do with some more detail. The hook is cited, but I don't think the hook is interesting enough. Covering a global topic does make the connect, but saying it has both positive and negative effects isn't really interesting especially since the article doesn't give much detail as to what the "beneficial and harmful effects" are.
While this doesn't fall under the purview of DYK requirements, the article could be structured better. If you think you've covered enough effects, or if the hook seems interesting enough you can just comment below. g'day FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@FacetsOfNonStickPans Thank you for your feedback! I can agree the article structure is not great, and a lot more content needs to be covered. I was not sure what to call the COVID-19 section, and the article is missing sections like history, different theories and experimental approaches, etc. I will try to find a source for the currently-unsourced paragraph and expand the article especially about its relationship to covid . I hope to do this in the next couple of days (I hope that doesn't rule me out for the 7-day DYK rule O_O). To be honest in the DYK proposal I was a little worried I would be making original research or going into unnecessary detail by describing results found by studies since I cannot yet find a review or meta-analysis published on covid effects in food psychology.
Part of my difficulty is that the overlap with food psychology and nutritional psychology is so big and there are no specific journals to my knowledge on food psychology, so the term itself is only used in a fraction of clearly relevant publications. That being said I have found a few textbooks on the subject and I will be reading through them and trying to expand the article more soon. Maybe I could ping you again when I have done these edits?
To use the two references provided for this DYK, here is an alternative idea for a hook with more specific information:
ALT HOOK 1:
... that food psychology research has found the COVID-19 pandemic led to both reduced and increased consumption of junk food among different geographical populations and educational backgrounds?
Darcyisverycute, now that you have already nominated the article, the seven day rule does not apply (see WP:DYKCRIT). That is to say, in general, you have at least a few weeks to make improvements going by the approximate duration of the some of the oldest DYK nominations. There is no hard and fast rule for this.
With regard to ALT1, even alternate hook ideas need to be supported with inline citations in the article. For example you have used the phrase "educational background". However I don't see this in the article. As per DYK rules "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source". Because of this, I should not comment upon the suitability of an alternate hook if it isn't correspondingly supported in the article first.
You've written above that you will try expanding the article some more. Go for it. However, do note that expanding the article beyond the given limit for DYK criteria (1,500 characters of prose) is not a necessity. So with regard to this nomination I would just suggest trying to expand the article keeping a focus on the hooks. Back up ALT1 in the article with suitable inline citations.
Once you have made your changes, just comment below. The option of a new review is always there. Cheers. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@FacetsOfNonStickPans Thank you for the explanation. I've tried expanding the covid section relevant to the DYK, including inline citations to back the hook and some info on potential causes. I hope the ALT1 is a little more interesting given the discussion on causes. I'm not sure if a new review is needed or not now that I've made the changes, I suppose it couldn't hurt? Please use your best judgement. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: None required.
Overall: For ALT1, the line Studies in Spain and... and corresponding citations are being taken as the inline citations supporting the hook. Some citations are open access while others are paywalled. Preference for ALT1 over ALT0. (Side note, "food psychology" is an overarching topic and potentially a coatrack without references elucidating a scope). Good to go, GTG. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering just this week why this article wasn't on Wikipedia when many related topics had been covered so well. Well here it is!
For ALT1, the line