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 Harrias ^talk 11:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• ... that a new dimensional approach is being suggested for diagnosing personality disorders?

Created by Allexe11 (talk). Self nom at 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Article is new enough and long enough. Hook is properly formatted. Article has no pictures that require a copyright check.
• Offline sources were not plagiarized and fully support cited text.
• Article is not fully supported by inline citations. See tags.
• Article reads like a paper, not an encyclopedia entry. Example of that: "That is, although both are characterized primarily by maladaptive excessive introversion," This really needs to be fixed. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK [widiger, 1993] is cited several times in the text, not inline, but does not appear in the references. This needs addressing as the criteria for DYK say "Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines," --LauraHale (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix problems and let me know so DYK review can continue. --LauraHale (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review. I have edited the article to address the issues brought up. Please let me know if there are any other problems that need to be addressed. Allexe11 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not addressed. "Dimensional approach to personality disorders" is the article title. The first section is "Five-factor model". It does not mention Dimensional approach to personality disorders. In fact, Dimensional approach to personality disorders is mentioned only once in the article. The article needs additional work to make it clear the topic is Dimensional approach to personality disorders. I have read the article and reread the article. I could not tell you the least bit thing about "Dimensional approach to personality disorders" and I have zero concept of why the article starts talking about "Five-factor model". The lead section before "Five-factor model" SHOULD be a summary of the article, especially at this length. "Five-factor model" is not even mentioned in the lead. Please use the FIRST section to summarize the article, use "Dimensional approach to personality disorders" in the article more to make it clear Dimensional approach to personality disorders is about "Dimensional approach to personality disorders".--LauraHale (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

-On hold while at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dimensional_approach_to_personality_disorders.Smallman12q (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• The AfD was a strong keep! GO GO GO! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is no support for the hook. There is no support that a "new dimensional approach to is being suggested for diagnosing personality disorders". Using trait theory to model personality is not new, e.g. 16 Personality Factors, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and many other personality tests are based on "dimensions" or "traits' derived from factor analysis, just as the Big Five personality traits does. The "Big Five" which the article mostly discusses is not that "new" - being at least 20 years old. The article on personality disorders does not mention the "Big Five". Personality traits are not necessarily abnormal or a "disorder". The hook and the article confuses "personality traits" with "personality disorders". Studying personality structure is studying personality in general. Everyone has a personality according to these constructs, but most people do not have a personality "disorder". MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond which, the article has a large number off tags in it. AfD were the least of its problems and the editor never adequately addressed these. One of the rules for DYK was free of tags, so all systems were not go once it survived AfD. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Laura, they were go for a review, not to promote it :P Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Tags make it ineligible. Problems have not been resolved in a timely manner. --LauraHale (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)