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 SL93 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
No edits to fix issues after a long enough span of time.

Muscle Dysmorphia[edit]

5x expanded by Ivid11 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC).

  • Article has been 5x expanded. Hook and article are length compliant. No image. QPQ done. Hook is NPOV and cited to a RS inline. No obvious copyvio. All other criteria appear met. Link not bolded in hook, I took the initiative of bolding it as a non-controversial edit. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, at 208 characters, the hook is over the maximum of 200 at DYK. Ivid11, please supply a new, shorter hook. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hook fact: The hook fact is in the Tod et al. (2016, p. 181) reference and is in the article.
  • Hook: At 200 characters, the hook is technically short enough, but I suggest shortening it to something like:
Something shorter is often hookier. For ALT1b, a "baggy clothes" comment from Tod et al. is needed in the article. I'm not saying "no" to a hook with the weightlifting too, but I find the idea that people seeking muscles hide their physiques more interesting / surprising than that their weightlifting gets out of control.
  • copyvio: An Earwig check finds a possible violation between the article lede and this source, but the latter was posted June 2016 and the lede was present on WP prior to that so it is WP that has been copied. No plagiarism issues noted.
  • QPQ check: According to QPQ check, this is Ivid11's first DYK nomination, so no QPQ review required.
  • It has now been over a month since the last activity on this nomination. The nominator hasn't edited since the end of April and it doesn't look like anyone else is volunteering to bring this article up to scratch, so I suggest this be closed. 97198 (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)