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 pageorWikipedia 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: promotedbyHawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
... that your brain better remembers information learned while intoxicated when you are drunk later due to state-dependent memory?
ALT1:... that if an individual always studied for a test while slightly caffeinated, it will most likely be easiest to recall what they studied during the test if they are at a similar level of caffeination due to state-dependent memory?
ALT2:... that memory retrieval is most efficient when an individual is in the same state of consciousness as they were when the memory was formed due to state-dependent memory?
5x expanded by Nperez27 (talk). Self nominated by at 02:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC).
ALT3: ... that when you are drunk you are more likely to remember things you learned while you were drunk, according to the theory of state-dependent memory?Drmies (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Urm... could you clue me in where the hook is cited? I'm finding the statements, but no citations to back it up. Somewhat concerned about the density/clustering of the references WP:CITEKILL. Untill these are resolved, I'm uncomfortable with promoting. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, I'm not really comfortable with it right now either. I imagine citation 9 will prove it, but my JSTOR doesn't provide access. 20:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
Striking ALT1, which at 228 characters (including spaces) is well over the absolute max of 200. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, Drmies, I thought I should point out that the creator and nominator was part of a 2014 class a Notre Dame, and classes ended over two weeks ago. Although we should give this the standard week for a reply, I think this has probably been abandoned with the end of the school year, since the last edit the nominator did was April 29. Unless someone is willing to take this article in hand, what you see is likely what's going to be there for the foreseeable future. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an attempt to revive this abandoned nomination, to get it promoted, and to clear it from the backlog. ALT4 is intended to have the same meaning as the above ALTs, and to be a little shorter, snappier and more hooky. Obviously I cannot review my own hook, but I've checked the article and I believe the review should be straightforward and easy. ALT4 (or at least the first para of the article header, which says roughly the same thing) is supported by offline citation #1, which we would need to accept AGF. I found one disambig link ("free association") in the article, and corrected it, and the nominator/creator doesn't need to do a QPQ because she has not achieved any previous DYKs. --Storye book (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Review needed for ALT4 --Storye book (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Major expansion was recent and appears to meet 5x (counter doesn't work for me). Have to accept most refs on GF. Added an accessible ref for the hook. So the article seems OK. But I do have a problem with ALT4, both due to the hidden article name (for no obvious reason in this case) and the use of "tanked" which I'm not sure translates well. So...
Five times expansion checks out; cites are present for hook, though refs are a bit thin on the ground in parts of the article overall. I added a page number for the hook ref that is available online. I'll leave it to an admin to decide whether the image is sufficiently closely related to the article, but it does illustrate the concept to which it is linked and is appropriately licenced.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Urm... could you clue me in where the hook is cited? I'm finding the statements, but no citations to back it up. Somewhat concerned about the density/clustering of the references WP:CITEKILL. Untill these are resolved, I'm uncomfortable with promoting. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Review needed for ALT4 --Storye book (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Five times expansion checks out; cites are present for hook, though refs are a bit thin on the ground in parts of the article overall. I added a page number for the hook ref that is available online. I'll leave it to an admin to decide whether the image is sufficiently closely related to the article, but it does illustrate the concept to which it is linked and is appropriately licenced.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
