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 Allen3talk 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: First-time submitter to WP:DYK. The article was expanded more than tenfold on 15 July 2013 by moving it from a user sandbox. The hook is referenced by footnotes and the accompanying text, especially in the article section IQ classification and genius. Several of the key references live online, and I have provided direct links to the text of those references online in the citations in the article references, for easy verifiability.
Background: The article was rated as a high-importance, start-class article for the Psychology WikiProject on 28 May 2011. The article has been flagged for expert attention since 16 October 2012, and on 26 February 2013, I announced on the article talk page that it was time to update the article using better sources (previously shared by a link posted on the article talk page). I then began a sandbox update of the article, and during that process discovered the reader feedback page for the article and also received helpful comments to the sandbox draft from other editors. Now as I post the expanded version, I hope through collaboration with other editors eventually to bring this article all the way up to featured article quality.
Prior to the large scale edit on 15 July, the prose section had around 400 characters. Now, there are far more than 4000 characters of prose, so the required fivefold expansion is clearly met (and it's also new enough) Also, as first-time nominator, no QPQ is needed. I need to take a closer look at the content of this article, therefore I will post this review in two parts. At first glance I can already say that the hook is not suitable. Obviously, being a "genius" (however this term may be defined) is not a prerequisite for being awarded a Nobel Prize (especially concerning the Nobel Peace Prize, which is strictly non-academic). The second part of the hook statement basically is that Feynman was widely regarded a genius (a term lacking any official, universally accepted definition), that he once was tested an IQ of 125, and that he is a Nobel Prize laureate. So what? In my opinion, these three facts are completely unrelated and should not be put together to make some kind of a point. Before having finished the deeper analysis of the article itself, I can thus say that in any case, another hook is needed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
So, here comes my review of the article itself: It seems to be extremely well written and sourced, in my opinion being too technical, though. I have to admit that I am not experienced enough to determine if in some cases, the paraphrasing of the sources might be too close to the original. To sum it up, I guess the article is eligible for DYK as long as there is an acceptable hook.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. I think the hook submitted is well evidenced in reliable sources in the article, and I took extra care to find sources that can be verified online through Google Books links. Your comment about how technical the reading level of the article is was helpful (I was relying on technical sources for my research, so I picked up some of that writing style, but DID NOT do close paraphrasing). So I will work on a rewrite of the lede and eventually the whole article to make the readability more friendly for people from around the world who read English as a second language. I hope that meanwhile an editor will see fit kindly to post the new expansion as a DYK. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess another opinion is needed here. WeijiBaikeBianji, please don't get me wrong. I think you did a great job on expanding the article (that stuff I wrote about possible close paraphrasing obviously was capable of being misunderstood; I should have made it clear that I was assuming good faith). There is no doubt that the hook is properly referenced. But I stick with my reasoning why I think it's not suitable.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the follow-up comment that helped me focus on your thoughts on the hook language. I actually found this fact surprising when I discovered it, because when I was growing up in the United States, it was widely believed that "genius" is a designation of an IQ range (as it was for the first Stanford-Binet test), and I've actually had a Google News search going for quite a few years on the phrase "genius IQ," which is a frequently occurring phrase in English. So it was surprising to me that two persons who have had biographers name them as geniuses--Richard Feynman and William Shockley--are known historically to have had lower IQs than the former classification required for "genius" designation, while Lewis Terman decided as of the second revision of the Stanford-Binet test to abandon the term "genius" altogether for IQ classification. I think many people in several parts of the world would find all parts of the hook surprising. I appreciate your comments and look forward to comments from any other Wikipedians who have thoughts about this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Per User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, there are multiple formatting errors in the Harvrefs. Please see provided link. These need to be corrected. — Maile (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about that tool, which I have installed. (After edit: I relentlessly tracked down every typo or template implementation detail that was generating error messages, and fixed them all. I have a few more references, already in the bibliograpy, to link to in article text. I appreciate you telling me about that tool, as it will help me fix many other articles.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Needs another reviewer's opinion. As for the Harvrefs, per discussion on WT:DYK, the HarvErrors is not a criterion for DYK passage, and should not be included here; it distracts from the actual DYK review. (Maile, you're welcome to mention it on the article's talk page, or correct the error yourself, but please don't use any icons in DYK reviews.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I was at a conference on the topic of this article and on other topics, and now that I am back at my office I am glad to follow up on further editor suggestions for improvements of the article. The suggestion I'll follow up on first, besides further details of the citation templates, is simplifying the language of the article along the lines kindly suggested by editor FoxyOrange earlier here. A participant at the conference had a detailed discussion with me about simplified language for the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Still needs another reviewer's opinion, including on the suitability of the hook. There have been a number of edits since the above was posted. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing attention to this. I've been tweaking the article along the lines suggested by the other replies here since the major expansion occurred. The article was rerated as B class (up from start class) by another participant in Wiki Project Psychology. I'd like to keep working on the article, which is a high-priority article for that project, all the way to taking it to featured article status. I'm open to suggestions about the hook. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Additions to the IQ classification and giftedness section check out OK after reviewing the sources. Other changes were not particularly relevant for the purposes of DYK. As the hook is the major issue on the table, I agree with FoxyOrange's assessment that the facts presented here do not mesh well together; the use of the word "genius" here refers to different concepts: One was a metric, the other is a general descriptor that, in at least one of the sources, could considered independent of IQ (i.e. Pickover 1998). This feels somewhat like equivocation; I acknowledge the meanings are related. but it feels a bit too loose for this hook. Can I recommend just cutting the hook down to:
I believe this is sufficiently interesting enough, as genius is still a fairly common term folks throw around, but has largely been abandoned psychological assessment. Given the previous discussion and that this is just a truncation of the previous hook, so as long as the nominator does not object, I believe I can approve this DYK. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The suggested hook change is agreeable to me, the nominator. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Also fine with me. Finally, the nomination is good to go.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: striking original hook per review and agreement; ALT1 remains for promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)