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: promoted by SL93 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Thank you for this very comprehensive article. You probably will not remember the large tomes called Home Doctor which people kept in their houses up to about 1939. They had all the known symptoms of common conditions in alphabetical order, and you were supposed to diagnose yourself and then follow the brief and possibly ambiguous advice. They were a paradise for hypochondriacs, but in fact anyone who skimmed through them would end up wondering whether they had yellow fever, black death and all the rest of it. Well, your article is a great one for that effect ... fascinating! (just joking).
So, now the serious bit. There are some short, standard medical phrases which match the sources, but I do not believe that as such they count as copyvio. Two issues remain: (1) The QPQ that you have linked above is incomplete; please finish it? (2) The article has five paragraphs which have no citation at the end (although they do contain at least one citation in the middle). In such a long and mostly cited article on a less serious subject such as popular culture, I would not worry about that. But every sentence is of serious import here, so please could you either remove those uncited bits, or cite them? When these two issues are resolved, this nomination should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book:(Thanks BlueMoonset for the ping.) Honestly I don't see what you mean. Article easily passed GA. Are you questioning the pass? You should ping Vaticidalprophet also as well then. It was hard to find a reviewer experienced with WP:MEDRS and who had the interest to review, so I don't know what you want changed. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping! 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, as it happens, Psiĥedelisto only has four prior DYK nominations that were promoted, so the supplied QPQ, while barely a review (a suggested ALT hook plus saying it does meet the other non-hook criteria is not adequate; the review needs to specify what was checked), isn't needed for this nomination. (It will be for the next review.) Psiĥedelisto, DYK's criteria do vary from GAN's, so sometimes a DYK reviewer wants things that a GA reviewer may not have requested. Typically, all this means is that the article comes out of the second review with a bit more to it than after the first review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Seems I rely too much on ping system. Was waiting on reply to give fuller review to the QPQ DYK, but same reviewer here reviewed there. I don't mind doing another QPQ even if not required yet. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping! 02:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset and Psiĥedelisto for the info about the DYK situation. You can forget about the DYK on this occasion.
The five paragraphs mentioned above are still without a citation at the end. (That means that the last sentence of those paragraphs is not proven, and because the subject is medicine, we do not know whether we have been given dangerously incorrect information - I am not accusing you of being inaccurate, but that is a principle that we must abide by for commonsense and safety in general).
It is important to understand that WP and its readers do not know how honourable and highly qualified (or not) our editors are. So the only way we can all check out and therefore believe what we read in our articles is to look at the citations. You could say, in a sense, that the citations are more important than the main text of our articles, because that is where the important facts are (as far as the reader is concerned). The main text is only there to tell us what facts are in the citations, and to pull the thing together into a narrative - well, that is how the "can we believe Wikipedia?" question can be answered, anyway.
Medicine is a vital subject in which we cannot afford to let our readers down. So, Psiĥedelisto, please would you kindly let us know if you are simply unable to access a medical library for citation material. If that is so, then we shall either have to find another medical expert to find the citations for us, or we shall have to close this DYK nomination, which would be a great pity. Storye book (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: Don't talk down to me, it's offensive. I'm not answering that remark about the medical library because it's absurd. Just mark the paragraphs you say have problems and I will fix them. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping! 12:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: Done. With pleasure. You said above: "Honestly I don't see what you mean". I'm so glad that now you do. When you have responded successfully to the five citation-needed tags, this nomination should be DYK-ready. Storye book (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Psiĥedelisto for resolving most of the citation-needed templates. There is one remaining, which I think we can leave in the hope that someone else may be able to find a citation one day. Storye book (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: Thank you. I am sorry for becoming angry with you, some of these places did indeed need a citation. I was just frustrated by your repetition without cn-tagging, so thanks for doing that. I disagreed with some of your cn-tags, I felt that the statements being made were fairly obvious (it's hard to differentiate child abuse and OI; there are probably unknown types of OI), I saw it as common sense, but I guess there is no common sense per René Descartes. I fixed all of them eventually by the way. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!
Thank you, Psiĥedelisto. About the anger: it doesn't work on here. Many people want to work here in peace to escape their present or historical surroundings of anger, violence, addiction, insanity, their own terminal illness, war and the rest. In a sense WP is (or should be) a haven in which to work peacefully for the benefit of others whom we will never meet, and in which to work in the expectation of no thanks or other reward. When the anger starts to rise, think first about what people's intentions are before expressing negative emotion. I'm not really writing this for you, because you have shown above that you are self-aware, and are learning to control it. I am writing it for those who think they can justify anger, on or off WP - and this page does have lurkers. On 27 January when you wrote your angry comment, it had 50 readers. Storye book (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this very comprehensive article. You probably will not remember the large tomes called Home Doctor which people kept in their houses up to about 1939. They had all the known symptoms of common conditions in alphabetical order, and you were supposed to diagnose yourself and then follow the brief and possibly ambiguous advice. They were a paradise for hypochondriacs, but in fact anyone who skimmed through them would end up wondering whether they had yellow fever, black death and all the rest of it. Well, your article is a great one for that effect ... fascinating! (just joking).
Good to go. Storye book (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed all of them eventually by the way. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping!