Template:Did you know nominations/Reinforcement sensitivity theory

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: rejected by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reinforcement sensitivity theory

(

)

... that Reinforcement sensitivity theory can be used to predict individual differences in job performance?

Created/expanded by Plroseman (talk). Self nom at 17:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

New enough and long enough. Hook is properly formatted. No images in article needing copyright checked.
Fact tags need to be cleaned out. Hook fact is cited in lead but not in the body of article. This makes me leery as it might be viewed as trivial and removed from the article. In the article text, it isn't clear this is a fact and it isn't properly cited. In the first section providing background, "Reinforcement sensitivity theory" does not actually appear and the section appears a mess and I can't understand it. It makes me wonder: WHY IS THIS IN THE ARTICLE? Is it just padding to get the article to length? Ditto with "Gray's Biopsychological Theory: Behavioral Activation and Inhibition Systems". What is this doing in the article? It is completely unclear based on the text. It thus feels like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV. These sections need to really be improved because I'm tempted to tag the article for those problems based on the first two sections. --LauraHale (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems mentioned need to be addressed before completing the rest of the review. --LauraHale (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be reorganized to make sense. e.g. how is "Clinical research" under "Current applications? Why is "Renaming Impulsivity" a major section? And is this section suggesting that "Impulsivity" be renamed "extroversion" or what? I don't understand what this section is saying. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)