Template:Did you know nominations/Neural synchrony
- 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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Neural synchrony
... that people's brains fall in neural synchrony with other brains during shared experiences?Source: Kinreich, Sivan; Djalovski, Amir; Kraus, Lior; Louzoun, Yoram; Feldman, Ruth (2017-12-06). "Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 17060- ALT1:
... that people's brain activity falls in neural synchrony with other brains when they play music together?Source: Sänger, Johanna; Müller, Viktor; Lindenberger, Ulman (2012). "Intra- and interbrain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6: 312. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312 - ALT2: ... that guitarists playing a duet together have been shown to be in neural synchrony? Source: Sänger, Johanna; Müller, Viktor; Lindenberger, Ulman (2012). "Intra- and interbrain synchronization and network properties when playing guitar in duets". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6: 312. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00312
Created by BGsynch21 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC).
@BGsynch21: New and long enough, Earwig finds no copyvios, QPQ not needed. Many paragraphs do not have a citation at their end, so it's unclear what source these are cited by. The hook fact doesn't seem to apply generally, as the cited source says in its abstract, "neural synchrony was found for couples, but not for strangers". Thanks for doing such a thorough job on this article; I think it is actually close to Good Article status. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Antony-22! Thank you very much for reviewing my DYK nomination and for your kind words about the article. I see what you're saying about the citations. My thought process was that the article's paragraphs, barring the intro, should have multiple citations that link to sources for the information used. I didn't create each individual paragraph around one single source, which is why I didn't always cite one source at the end of some of my paragraphs. Instead, many of my paragraphs are structured around a couple different sources, and I did my best to cite these sources appropriately throughout. I hope this is sufficient, but I am open to other perspectives, especially if they are more conducive to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though.
- You also make a very good point about the citation for the DYK nomination. I was trying to make a hook that applied to the gist of my article as a whole, rather than one specific fact. Much of the research that supports the claim in the hook uses more specific examples (e.g., communication, coordination, or narrative processing paradigms) to conclude a connection between neural synchrony and shared experiences. Although it does not mention it explicitly in the abstract, the citation I decide to use explores shared subjective experiences, discussing "how natural social moments express in the brain as a shared experience of two interacting humans." Nevertheless, thanks to your comment I'm now realizing that I could have used a more concrete hook and a more precise citation, rather than using a hook that speaks broadly about the essence of my article as a whole. If I could tweak it at this stage, I would, but I am still really hoping for a DYK selection!
- Once again, thank you for taking the time to review my article and nomination. I'm glad you think it is thorough and close to Good Article status. I am more than happy to take the necessary steps to upgrade the article, so if you (or anyone else out there) have any suggestions, then I would love to hear from you! BGsynch21 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- BGsynch21, you can always suggest another hook (or other hooks)—sometimes nominations go through a number of hooks before an interesting one is found. Please do create "a more concrete hook and a more precise citation"; it's what's needed now! Thank you very much. (Courtesy ping to reviewer Antony-22, in case they have other suggestions, or a further response to the nominator.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi all, I have made an adjustment to the DYK nomination. Thanks for letting me know this was possible Bluemoonset! BGsynch21 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- BGsynch21, I was happy to do so. For future reference, we add the new hook as an ALT hook (in this case ALT1), while retaining the old hook for historical purposes. I've restored the original hook and given your new hook an ALT1 label. Antony-22, does the new hook answer your hook concerns? If any citation issues remain, perhaps you can add citation needed templates in those places, and BGsynch21 can provide the necessary citations? Many thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @BGsynch21 and BlueMoonset: The citations still need to be added at the end of several paragraphs. ALT1 is better but I want to avoid making a broad statement based on one or a few primary research articles. How about something like the following? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that guitarists playing a duet together have been shown to be in neural synchrony?
- @BGsynch21 and BlueMoonset: The citations still need to be added at the end of several paragraphs. ALT1 is better but I want to avoid making a broad statement based on one or a few primary research articles. How about something like the following? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- BGsynch21, I was happy to do so. For future reference, we add the new hook as an ALT hook (in this case ALT1), while retaining the old hook for historical purposes. I've restored the original hook and given your new hook an ALT1 label. Antony-22, does the new hook answer your hook concerns? If any citation issues remain, perhaps you can add citation needed templates in those places, and BGsynch21 can provide the necessary citations? Many thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi all, I have made an adjustment to the DYK nomination. Thanks for letting me know this was possible Bluemoonset! BGsynch21 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- BGsynch21, you can always suggest another hook (or other hooks)—sometimes nominations go through a number of hooks before an interesting one is found. Please do create "a more concrete hook and a more precise citation"; it's what's needed now! Thank you very much. (Courtesy ping to reviewer Antony-22, in case they have other suggestions, or a further response to the nominator.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Antony-22, I think at this point we need to proceed as if BGsynch21 will not be returning; I pinged them over two weeks ago and they haven't edited since. About the citations, I feel I should point out to you what DYK generally expects to meet its criteria (per WP:DYKSG#D2):
A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.If there are any paragraphs without citations, then that could be a problem. If the final portion in a paragraph doesn't have one but there are one or more citations earlier in the paragraph, it's less of a concern, unless, of course, a hook fact is in one of those uncited ending sections. If you're otherwise happy with the article, then what we need is a new reviewer for the ALT2 hook you proposed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi all, I have updated the hook per Antony-22's recommendation. Thank you for your help!BGsynch21 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BGsynch21: Thanks. You also still need to add citations at the end of each paragraph so that every sentence is clearly sourced. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Antony-22 I took care of it by sourcing what needed to be sourced. I did have to remove an unreferenced sentence which only summarized the methods that are listed right below it. I also removed two sentences that appeared to be original research and I found a source in a Google search to reference a statement. SL93 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Antony-22 Should we get another reviewer? SL93 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SL93, BGsynch21, and BlueMoonset: The sourcing looks good now. I think we just need someone to approve my hook. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will try pinging Theleekycauldron and Cwmhiraeth to see if one of them can look at it. SL93 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
cited and interesting :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will try pinging Theleekycauldron and Cwmhiraeth to see if one of them can look at it. SL93 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SL93, BGsynch21, and BlueMoonset: The sourcing looks good now. I think we just need someone to approve my hook. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BGsynch21: Thanks. You also still need to add citations at the end of each paragraph so that every sentence is clearly sourced. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Promoting ALT 2 to Prep 5 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)