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 Orlady (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• ... that each of the Big Five personality traits can be further broken down into six facets?

Created/expanded by Matthew.murdoch (talk). Nominated by Carabinieri (talk) at 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Length and newness checks based on date of nomination. Hook is properly formatted and interesting enough. (Not particularly interested in the topic and reading through it, nothing jumps out as more interesting.) Hook is supported by inline citations. Plagiarism check here shows no concerns. No need for QPQ.
• One fact tag needs cleaning up.
• If this was GA, I would probably want reference column in the tables or better way to indicate table text is clearly supported by inline citations. Otherwise, the one fact tag needing cleaning, it is supported by inline citations.
• Parts of the article read like a report on the sources. Example: "Costa and McCrae originally developed facet scales for neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience to reflect the fact that each broader trait is composed of different aspects of personality." As there isn't any lead into why this article about Facet is suddenly talking about the Five model, that lends to this view. I can make good cases to myself both ways about the appropriateness of this and whether is it WP:SYNTH and bordering on WP:OR so taking the bad route out and asking the nominator to improve that some. This in some ways impacts on the neutrality of the article, because it isn't clear that there isn't a cherry picking of selected types of facets. The easiest way to handle this might be to take the CURRENT lead, put it into an background section, and then write the WP:LEAD using summary style. That would likely solve half the problems I think with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
• Offline sources are free of copyvios and support the cited text. --LauraHale (talk)

Fix fact tag. Address WP:NPOV/WP:OR concerns. --LauraHale (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• - Concerns appear to have been addressed. Re-review anyone? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me technically, AGF on offline sources. I don't see a synth/OR problem with this version. With a subject like this there will never be full agreement and I am sure there is room for addition of information. Same with most articles, just a bit more so with this one. I seem to remember a joke about asking two psychologists for an explanation and getting three conflicting views. I can live with the one fact tag - a new article is not expected to be perfect. Good to go, my view. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)