Template:Did you know nominations/Maternal sensitivity

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: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maternal sensitivity

(

)

... that children of maternally sensitive mothers scored higher in math and phoneme knowledge than those who had a history of lower maternal sensitivity?

Created/expanded by Carina1205 (talk), R-Bot6 (talk), 1StrangerSC (talk). Nominated by Carina1205 (talk) at 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can the hook be properly formatted so it is clear what article we're reviewing here? --LauraHale (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is not fully supported by inline citations.
As this article is subject to WP:MEDRS, can the PMID's be added to the sources? --LauraHale (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the hook to something different which contained the words "maternal sensitivity". Also, I am not sure what you mean by the article is not supported by inline citations? Everything in the article comes from a somewhere else which is sourced at the end of the last sentence from that source. As for the PMID's, I added the codes for the ones I found. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carina1205 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

--

Hook still not properly formatted. Article still not fully supported by sources. The unpublished dissertation is not an acceptable source in a medical article. There are a number of raw URLs in the citation list that need to go. There is at least one source that appears to be a primary source medical study where the section pretty much exclusively talks about it, not how others responded to it. No PMID in the citation. Appears to be other possible WP:MEDRS sourcing issues. This is not ready. When ALL these concerns are addressed, please comment HERE AND on my talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how the hook is still improperly formatted after it's recent revisions. Citations have been created/modified where requested. Improper referencing issue has been addressed. R-Bot6 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing now appears to be reliable and, based on my understanding of WP:MEDRS, compliant. (I have asked a medical person to verify.) Hook is properly formatted. Hooked fact is found in the article and supported by a source. I think it is good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)