Template:Did you know nominations/Social determinants of mental health
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was part of a class assignment that ended on December 1, and the nominator has not edited Wikipedia for over four weeks. Closing with regret; it was abandoned by its nominator too soon.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Social determinants of mental health
- ... that the "social determinants of mental health" can help explain differences in mental health outcomes, such as why women are twice as likely to have depression than men? Source: "Women (10.4%) were almost twice as likely as were men (5.5%) to have had depression." SOURCE: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db303.htm
- Reviewed:
Created by Psg2022 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
- n
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - n
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
A QPQ is not needed. There is content that needs to be referenced. There are three empty sections which need to be filled. Especially with the bolded wikilinks and statements such as "on the other hand" as well as "also notable to consider", the article sounds like a mixture between a textbook and an essay. The article needs copyediting by someone who is well-versed in the topic. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I have edited the first few paragraphs of this article quite heavily (to remove extraneous information and make it more encyclopedic) and spot-checked the citations, and it's not looking promising – e.g., there was at least one instance of failed verification (claims inappropriately attributed to WHO Report which are probably OR), which I've gone ahead and fixed. In order for this nomination to pass, someone probably needs to check each and every citation within the article. Unless there is a response soon from the creator, I think this DYK nomination is headed for a fail. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The nominator hasn't edited since the 11th and article issues remain largely unaddressed, as noted above by Cielquiparle. As such there appears to be no path forward for this nomination anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
