Template:Did you know nominations/The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler

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 Victuallers (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler

(

)

... ~~that the 1971 science fiction film The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler has been cited as the first film about cloning~~?

ALT1:... that the clones in the film The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler were based on the Soma from Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World?

ALT2... that in the 1971 science fiction film The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler, the clones were referred to as soma, which is Greek for body?

Created/expanded by Inkwell765 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC).

Article is long enough, was nominated inside the window, and prose is neutral. I've fixed up the references, cleaned up some grammatical anomalies, and fixed a few wikilinks. (FYI: Angie Dickerson is not the same person as Angie Dickinson.) I've struck the first hook because it's not supported by the cited references. The Human Cloning book makes no claim as to the pioneering nature of the film as regards clones and the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction simply notes the film as a "cinema treatment of medical clone exploitation, apparently the first" which is far more specific than simply "about cloning" and more equivocal as just "apparently the first" on even that specific aspect of cloning on film. I've also struck the ALT1 hook as inaccurate and misleading. In Brave New World, "soma" is a hallucinogenic drug, not a group of people. Also, the Tech-Noir source merely claims that the Soma in the film "seem to be aptly named after the soma" in the novel. That's a supposition, and a weak one, as the name could just as easily be derived from the biological term "somatic". Indeed, while the sentences sourced to this book are too closely paraphrased for comfort, the small changes wrought to the text make it partially nonsensical. (The sentence "However, Huxley's soma were not harvested for body parts." treats soma as if they were something other than pills, for example.) Before this can proceed, the text needs to be rid of close paraphrasing, a new hook needs to be crafted, and factual errors need to be weeded out. - Dravecky (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dravecky: So, if I re-write hook 1 the way you suggest it will pass? I don't think this article has anymore good hooks to use. I believe this film is the first to be shot on video to film in color, but I have no ref for that as yet. I wrote Angie Dickinson's as 'Dickerson'? How'd I do that? Inkwell765 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

How? I don't know, but it was "Dickerson" in three places. There's more to do than pick a new hook. You need to rewrite part of the prose to avoid close paraphrasing, you need to rewrite part of it to be factually correct, and you should be wary of IMDb forum posts as major sources. - Dravecky (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have R/W issues, but I will get to it as soon as I can. Inkwell765 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dravecky: I think I made the changes you asked for. Do I need to remove the author ref? I'm not basing any hooks on it. Inkwell765 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, what you've got now is fine. I've made a few tiny tweaks to the prose for clarity and added a more solid reference to back up the hook fact. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting to get this ready for the front page. - Dravecky (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)