Template:Did you know nominations/Thermal Man

The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thermal Man

(

)

... that the Thermal Man, a super-powered humanoid conceived and developed by writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby, killed its own creator?

Created by That Amazing Guy (talk). Self nominated at 08:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC).

Good to go IMO. Article: Age is OK (created December 22). Length is OK (over 6,000 characters). Policy OK -- no POV or anything else bad. Sufficient cites, 16 inline cites of ten sources, appropriately used (most or all material is cited). Level of citation is actually excellent. Only one of the ten is online, so having to assume that the sources are cited correctly -- the one I could check had one cite, and was basically OK although not perfect (it mischaracterized the source, but only slightly and to an acceptable degree IMO although I did correct it). No copyvio discernible, www spot check came up clean, and although again the sources are mostly offline the prose style and everything else indicates copyvio very unlikely. No other issues. Formatting good, refs formatted correctly, quite well-written. An outstanding article IMO. Good to go on that front.

Hook is OK, correct length and formatting. It's reasonably interesting BUT the double use of "created" confused me: "the Thermal Man, created by [real-life creators], was created by [fictional creator]...". It's also not specified that the entity is fictional. Rather than proposing an ALT I took the liberty of just editing this one, so as to greenlight the entry and move forward. In doing so I though it scanned best with a different hook, which helped make it that much clearer that the "creator" was fictional, I think, and is equally interesting. If this's not OK sorry and anyone may amend at will.

Here's the original hook:

~~... that the Thermal Man, created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, was created by a Beijing professor?~~

and here's what I edited it to:

~~... that the Thermal Man, a super-powered humanoid conceived and developed by writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby, killed its own creator?~~

New hook meets the standard -- slightly longer but at 136 characters well within bounds, material is all sourced, equally interesting IMO, meets all other standards, and is less confusing. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Herostratus! :D Merry Christmas! THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 04:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

While the new hook does meet the rule for hooks of articles about fictional characters or works of fiction—that they involve the real world in some way—and does solved the double "created" problelm, there is also a rule that reviewers cannot review their own hooks. Since a number of facts were added in the hook rewrite, another reviewer is needed to verify that the additional facts are properly sourced and included in the article, and give an opinion of the new hook as a whole. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for your input! :-) Can I request that this hook be saved for December 28 (any Marvel fan will know what day that is!) Thanks, --THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 14:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of issues remain. First, the hook at the top has the word "gigantic", but the Thermal Man's size is not specified anywhere in the article. If "gigantic" is accurate, then the appropriate wording and inline source citation must be added to the article; either way, you can safely use "super-powered" (originally suggested in the "edited it to" entry above), though extra inline sourcing in the Powers and abilities section might be nice. Second, the hook's "killed its own creator" is echoed in the article's Return subsection, second paragraph, first sentence. That sentence must be given an inline source citation according to DYK rules; relying on a citation in a later sentence—if that's the case here—is not allowed for hook facts. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Re the first point: Oops. The "edited it to" entry above was supposed to be the new hook; I guess I left an earlier draft in place by mistake; now corrected.Re the second point, huh. Reffing each sentence in a paragraph (to the same ref) seems kind of a bit much, but OK; did that too Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Revised hook (listed up top) is approved now that it is cited appropriately. Rest of the article approved per Herostratus. Will try for a December 28 slot.

Note: inline sourcing doesn't need to be each sentence, but sentences with hook facts in them are exceptions that must be cited in that way. It's then very clear that here's where a DYK reader can find the source for the fact given in the hook that brought them to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the part on direct citations... Kudos to Herostratus, who has helped ease my workload. I owe you one! ;-) THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 06:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)