Template:Did you know nominations/Parental brain
- 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 Orlady (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Parental brain
[edit]- ... that parental experience, as well as changing hormone levels during pregnancy and postpartum, cause changes in the parental brain?
- Comment: New article created
Created/expanded by Carina1205 (talk). Self nom at 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Reads like an essay, not an encyclopedic article (it was found?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any tips on what I should change to make it more encyclopedic? Ive run into this problem, before and I am not really sure how to make it encyclopedic. Thank you for your help. Carina1205 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest trimming "It was found" as this is very vague and possibly a weasel word. It's common in medical essays, but not on Wikipedia. The use of bulleted, bold section introductions also lends to the essay feel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I feel that the lists of brain structures makes it easier to read, especially if you are not familiar with certain words, but I could change them into just a sentence if you would prefer. I've made some changes to the writing. Could you please take a look? And thank you so much for helping me out with this. Carina1205 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any tips on what I should change to make it more encyclopedic? Ive run into this problem, before and I am not really sure how to make it encyclopedic. Thank you for your help. Carina1205 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this is looking better. Short, one sentence sections look pretty bad, but they're not part of the DYK criteria. That being said, the article is new enough, long enough, and well-referenced. Hook is interesting and referenced. Assuming good faith on the offline references. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.Carina1205 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)