Template:Did you know nominations/Personality neuroscience
- 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: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen talk 22:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Personality neuroscience
- ... that personality neuroscience studies personality in your brain? Source: DeYoung, Colin G.; Beaty, Roger E.; Genç, Erhan; Latzman, Robert D.; Passamonti, Luca; Servaas, Michelle N.; Shackman, Alexander J.; Smillie, Luke D.; Spreng, R. Nathan; Viding, Essi; Wacker, Jan (2022-10-12). "Personality neuroscience: An emerging field with bright prospects". Personality Science. 3. doi:10.5964/ps.7269. ISSN 2700-0710. PMC 9561792. PMID 36250039.
- Reviewed:
Created by AbyssMoon124 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Personality neuroscience; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment (not reviewing): A DYK hook has to be more than just a definition of the term. It should be something that the reader would find somewhat surprising. We also have to avoid second-person language ("you"). MartinPoulter (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- See below. - Long enough:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - See below.
- Neutral: - See below.
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - See below.
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting: - No.
- Other problems: - See non-review comment above.
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Article moved to mainspace on 27 November but not nominated until 9 December, more than 7 days later. The article is well beyond the required minimum length. Earwig reveals no copyvio, but I have spotted an instance of a sentence being lifted verbatim from a source without being properly enclosed in quotation marks (this seems unintentional, however); I have not ascertained whether this is an isolated occurrence. I don't find the hook interesting. I suppose it technically meets the citation requirement by virtue of the rather lengthy sentence in the WP:LEAD, but it's borderline (and moot since a different hook would be needed anyway). This is the nominator's first nomination, so they are QPQ exempt. Some (non-exhaustive) comments on the content:
- An issue that immediately stands out to me is that the article is written in a style and tone more reminiscent of a research paper than an encyclopaedia article.
- The article relies rather heavily on primary literature, rather than secondary or tertiary literature. As WP:MEDRS says:
Cite review articles, don't write them
. - Citing an entire book without providing page numbers is frowned upon, as it makes verification needlessly difficult.
(i.e., blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) to be associated with temperaments (i.e., sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic, and choleric, respectively)
– this mixes up the biles ("melan-", as in melanin, means "black").Austrian neurologists Sigmund Freud
– Freud was only a single person, not multiple.In 2010, the name "personality neuroscience" was coined by Colin G. DeYoung
– this is cited to DeYoung himself. That's not an appropriate source.who is currently a psychology professor
– avoid "currently" and similar phrasings that get dated. See MOS:CURRENT. This occurs quite a few times in the article.As personality neuroscience seeks to understand the link between personality and its underlying neurobiological mechanisms, generating testable hypotheses involve both the measurements of personality attributes and neurobiological structures and/or functions.
– unsourced.Detailed description of the Big Five personality traits will be provided under the section "Research findings in Personality Neuroscience" when discussing relevant research findings.
– there is no such section (it's "Current research"), and this is not how Wikipedia articles are written.Allport is a leading figure among the proponents of the idiographic approach
– whether Allport is a leading figure or not is an assessment that needs to come from the sources. The source cited here is Allport himself, and that's not an appropriate source for this claim. That being said, I doubt that Allport made this assertion in the cited source; it seems more likely to me that this is the editor who wrote the sentence weighing in on the matter—which is not allowed per WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view.Personality research that adopted the idiographic approach have demonstrated that the nomothetic approach (e.g., the Big Five) was unable to capture the within-person personality structure.
– this goes beyond describing the dispute and well into engaging in it.Specifically, PET neuroimaging scans have been widely used in pre-clinical and clinical settings in relation to epilepsy, dementia, cerebral amyloid, Parkinson's disease, and traumatic brain injuries.
– I don't find mentions of either epilepsy or cerebral amyloid in the cited source.Assay is an analytical measurement procedure defined by a set of reagents that produces a detectable signal, allowing a biological process to be quantified".
– the source says "An assay is an analytical measurement procedure defined by a set of reagents that produces a detectable signal, allowing a biological process to be quantified.", which differs only by the first word. Based on the stray quotation mark at the end I'm guessing this was meant to be quoted, but as it stands it falls on the wrong side of WP:PLAGIARISM (even if presumably by accident).Personality neuroscience can incorporate neuropsychopharmocological manipulation to establish causal link between personality traits and specific neurochemical processes (e.g., induced manipulation on levels of dopamine).
– unsourced.Ongoing effort to collect data from more diverse (i.e., non-WEIRD) sample
– "WEIRD" is the kind of jargon that really needs to be explained.