Template:Did you know nominations/Cognitive vulnerability
- 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 MehrajMir (Talk) 03:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Cognitive vulnerability edit
... Diathesis contributes to vulnerability?... that cognitive vulnerability is processed into depression?
Created/expanded by Guptakhy (talk). Self nom at 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
-
The nomination was rejected because it wasnt increased by five folds. However, the topic has been changed to a brand new topic. If you see its history, it is no longer vulnerability but is now Cognitive_vulnerability so that it is more relevant to psychology. Thus this makes it more eligible for a new topic rather than five fold expansion. I would like to request you to reconsider the nomination.Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, the article will pass. Can you suggest a more interesting hook? - PM800 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just added another hook! Cognitive vulnerability leads to depression and my article talks all about it! This is extremely fascinating for many psyc-savies! :D Khyati Gupta (talk)
- Now what goes down? Khyati Gupta (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just added another hook! Cognitive vulnerability leads to depression and my article talks all about it! This is extremely fascinating for many psyc-savies! :D Khyati Gupta (talk)
Hook is not formatted properly per DYK rules. I'm also not sure whether your contention that the topic change makes it eligible for an exception to the 5x expansion rule is valid. I'll ping a more experienced DYK admin to take a look at this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, may i please be guided how I can properly format the hook? Well the topic change was made because previous article was under the psychology articles however, it was poorly cited and also needed alot of work. This is all that can be effortfully found on cognitive vulnerability and it is difficult to write 5 times more about every psychological topic. I truly believe that the work on the article should be recognized in the DYK nomination. Khyati Gupta (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
*NOTICE: The article Vulnerability was moved to Cognitive vulnerability and the contents were over-written. I'm going to have to temporarily delete the article to restore the two separate articles, per Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- This article was improperly created by moving another title (Vulnerability) and overwriting the contents of the other article. I have split the article histories and restored the two separate articles. Cognitive vulnerability can be considered a new article, but I am tempted to slap the article creator with a boat-load of wet trout for creating a mess! --Orlady (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Orlady, I just wanted to make it more relevant to psychology. I had no intention to create a mess. Should I renominate the new article for DYK? Khyati Gupta (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Kindly reconsider the nomination for this article. Now that it is an officially new article, the article can be entitled for a DYK. Thank you and apologies for creating a havoc. Khyati Gupta (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I recommend rejection of this nomination for violations of copyright and significant problems with the quality of writing in the article.
- Details: I was not familiar with this topic before reading the article and looking at the cited sources that I could access online, including online abstracts for journal articles. I found that the article sections entitled "Bipolar disorder" and "Obsessive compulsive disorder" were largely copied from the abstracts of the journal articles cited as sources. This is a violation of copyright. (I rewrote the first of these sections.) Additionally, it is irresponsible to present the findings of a single clinical study in a manner that suggests that the findings are broadly validated and accepted -- all the more irresponsible if one has read only the abstract of a paper on the single study. Based on spot comparisons, it appears to me that other parts of this article were assembled from snippets of text taken from the Annual Reviews article and the dissertation. My concern about language relates to malformed sentences like "Associative and reflective processing mechanisms applied when cognitive venerability is processed into depression" -- I can guess that "venerability" was supposed to be "vulnerability" and that "applied" is the verb that makes this a complete sentence, but I can't make sense out of it otherwise. Finally, after my reading, I realized that the topic of this article is actually "cognitive vulnerability to depression" or "cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders" and that the topic is related to the basis for cognitive therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (which topics are not mentioned in the article, nor linked).
- In summary, the WP:COPYVIO problems need to be fixed, the article needs a lot of other work, and it's not in an appropriate condition to be featured in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have fixed citations. Reconsideration is demanded because there might be some misunderstanding by looking at the wrong article. I have NOT copied and pasted anything. I sat down, and read the material. Understood it and then wrote it in my own words. I DO NOT think that I have copied. The articles used are: encyclopedic or peer reviewed articles. If you want, I can get rid of bi-polar and or any of the topics which seem controversial to you. I do not believe that the article should be entirely changed from "Cognitive vulnerability" to "Cognitive vulnerability to depression" as it has some essence of the theories and definitions of the original cognitive concept. I also tagged the behavioral therapies article in the "See Also" section as told in your comment. This topic is one interesting cognitive theory and I will stand by it as much as possible. Tell me exactly what needs to be done and I will do it. I thank you in advance. Khyati Gupta (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Three cheers to you for following up on this, Guptakhy! Articles about esoteric concepts, like this one, are hard to write to Wikipedia standards, and many people do not have the persistence you have shown. I have started to review the article afresh. I see that you have resolved many of my earlier concerns, but I still see a few instances of WP:Close paraphrasing. Here is one instance, just one from the OCD section (I omitted the notes and put the similar words in bold face):
- Article: Negative interpretations of intrusive thoughts and images are central to the development and maintenance of obsessive compulsive disorder.
- Abstract of cited source: Cognitive models of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder propose that negative interpretations of intrusive thoughts and images are central to the development and maintenance of OCD.
I don't know much about the subject of this article, so I don't know about controversies regarding specific sections. My concern is to make sure that the cited sources are used appropriately (neither misrepresented nor too-closely paraphrased). Thanks for thinking about the title; you understand your scope better than I do, but I saw those other terms in the references cited. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Orlady, you scared me with your rejection. I spoke with my class TA (teaching assistant) and she told me to not worry too much. Then for a while, I was lurking on DYK pages and saw the process and absorbed some tacit knowledge. However, I was hurt. Anyhow. I should develop more thick skin.
- If I get rid of that whole passage, would you think it will make the article even better? Psychology is a difficult topic to write paper on because it is all empirical theories. The "Obsessive compulsive disorder" section is vague, I agree because of all the theories intertwining to the root cause of "Cognitive vulnerability". If you want, I can
- a) reword it or
- b) get rid of it.
- Again tell me exactly what to do to make it to DYK, and I will do it. I reworded the sentence you pointed out. Thank you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know whether the section should be removed or not, but do remember that you can use "quotation marks" to directly quote statements from the sources. Just remember to try not to copy more than a sentence, in most cases, and not to overdo the amount of direct quotations used. The use of quotation marks should depend on whether the statement itself is important enough in its wording that it needs to be worded exactly as it is and cannot be reworded without changing the meaning of the statement. That and for quoting critical reception comments about a subject. Just a word of advice there. SilverserenC 11:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are quotes often looked bad upon? I am willing to add them if required for this article to pass DYK. Khyati Gupta (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know whether the section should be removed or not, but do remember that you can use "quotation marks" to directly quote statements from the sources. Just remember to try not to copy more than a sentence, in most cases, and not to overdo the amount of direct quotations used. The use of quotation marks should depend on whether the statement itself is important enough in its wording that it needs to be worded exactly as it is and cannot be reworded without changing the meaning of the statement. That and for quoting critical reception comments about a subject. Just a word of advice there. SilverserenC 11:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with direct quotations. What would be wrong is to have direct quotations make up the majority of an article's content. Have a look at the close paraphrasing essay (already wikilinked above). Close paraphrasing is a tricky area. When topics get more complex, in my experience it is easier to run into close paraphrasing issues, as it's sometimes hard to say things in your own words (that's when direct quotations can be most useful). And maybe you are simply quite clever, having read the material and then written it close to the way it was originally worded simply by remembering the content well. This tool is useful for detecting close paraphrasing for online sources. I hope this helps. Schwede66 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- As an illustration, I took that abstract about OCD and attempted to restate it in my own words (but I may have misinterpreted some technical terminology and omitted some important details). As I read it, it says that: "It has been hypothesized that OCD symptoms are promoted by patterns of thinking that involve negative interpretations of intrusive thoughts and images. A study that compared the subjects' OCD-related beliefs and life events with their reported OCD symptoms found significant relationships between the subjects' OCD symptoms and both their beliefs and their experiences of negative life events, particularly for such OCD symptoms as neutralizing, ordering, and obsessing." The abstract also says "However, there was not support [in the study findings] for a cognitive–vulnerability–stress interaction"; I'm not sure how to interpret that. I don't like the vagueness of "it has been hypothesized", which is a paraphrasing of "Cognitive models of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder propose", but I don't know the subject in order to identify whose hypothesis this is. In general, I tried to limit the use of the source's words to repetition of technical terms. --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, I have removed the OCD part altogether. Vagueness of a paper goes against neutrality pillar of wikipedia. So I have removed it.Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Kindly revise the article. Thank you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was asked on my talk page to review this, I think a better hook is needed, and the first line in the article looks like a good one to me.
*ALT2:... cognitive vulnerability, in cognitive psychology, is an erroneous belief, cognitive bias, or pattern of thought
- Thoughts? Other than this I think the article good to go for DYK. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Depression is a very common psychological state of mind that many people go through. Some go through it and they are not even aware of it. Some go through it and make a big deal out of it. I believe that the hook of the article should be related to depression since it is alot more commonly related to the theory of Cognitive vulnerability - Khyati Gupta (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The article checks out as OK now, but we still need a good hook. The original hook doesn't work for me -- it is not supported by the article or by the sources cited in the article. ALT2 also doesn't work because it is incomplete -- it seems to me that it addresses the "cognitive" part of "cognitive vulnerability", but not the "vulnerability" part. Here's a revised version that I think is well-supported by both the article and source cited:
- ALT3 ... that a cognitive vulnerability is an erroneous belief or thought pattern that is believed to predispose a person to psychological problems? --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. So does it still need a revision?Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- In order to answer your query, Khyati: Yes, it does need a review. Orlady suggested an ALT hook. As she can't approve her own hook (that COI thing again), she's used the question symbol, so that somebody else has a look. Going by what she says, all that needs reviewing is the hook fact itself. Schwede66 05:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The hook is interesting in my view and short enough and cited in the article - AGF that the hook is supported by the cited source. Mikenorton (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)- In my opinion, that is intriguing enough, since that made me want to read the article, which I did. :) Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 23:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
