- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 00:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing issues unresolved after 2 weeks
Remarriage
edit- ... the health benefits of remarriage do not appear to be as strong as those for continuous marriage?
Created/expanded by Jmenkin (talk). Self nom at 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
All checks out. Ready to go. Harrison49 (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jmenkin, I'm concerned that in a few instances you've chosen wording that is too close to that used by the source. This is WP:Close paraphrasing. Examples: "actively reject the prospect of a new relationship" vs "actively rejected the prospect of a
new partnership" and "they blame their ex-spouses instead of themselves for the problems that led to the divorce" vs "more likely to blame their ex-spouses than themselves for the problems that led to the divorce". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are other problems here: the article makes numerous statements about mental and physical health associated with remarriage, but PMIDs are missing to determine if WP:MEDRS is used correctly. Some of the journal articles are reviews or meta-analyses, while others are primary studies-- and most of them are quite outdated. Please see WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches for correct use of medical sources-- we shouldn't be putting a statement about health on the mainpage if it is sourced to a primary study rather than secondary review, or to a ten-year-old secondary review. Also, if the hook is sourced to a recent high-quality review, is it correctly generalized for gender? The article seems to indicate that the result applies differently to men and women. Please use PubMed to locate recent reviews, and also fill in PMIDs and I will re-evaluate whether the article is reliably sourced, or relies on primary studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria: Thank you for pointing out the close paraphrasing, I will fix that right away. SandyGeorgia: I am new to wikipedia so I did not know about PMIDs but I will look into them from your links. Unfortunately, there is not a ton of research on the topic which is why I was citing older articles, but I will double check whether I can find any more recent studies that fit your criteria. Jmenkin (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jmenkin, thanks for your willingness to correct problems. The WP:MEDRS policy Sandy mentions above is really important if you're working in this topic area, so I'd recommend having a read of that. In terms of the paraphrasing issue, the Duplication Detector can be helpful when using web sources. However, it doesn't generally work for PDFs, Google Books, or (obviously) offline sources, so you'll have to check those manually. If you're not sure about standards for paraphrasing, WP:Close paraphrasing is a good resource to use. Let me know, either here or at my talk page, if you have any questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Jmenkin, please ping my talk page if I can be of any help in understanding PubMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Issues unaddressed after 2 weeks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
