Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Kirby: King of Comics

< Template:Did you know nominations
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, closed by Kusma talk 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Kirby: King of Comics

(
)
Jack Kirby
Jack Kirby

5x expanded by OlifanofmrTennant (talk). Self-nominated at 20:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kirby: King of Comics; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Expanded 5x, from 319 to 1614 characters; long enough. Well-sourced, neutral, no plagiarism. I like the first hook; its source is reliable. Great image; I agree that's a better one than the book cover. Well done taking a stub to a short-ish and salvageable article. Good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have pulled this nom from prep, as it fails to include a summary of the book's contents and thus fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. It also contains at least two errors, one which says Evanier "obtained" artworks from Kirby "while working for him" - he only obtained access, and not apparently while working for him, and another which says the book was met with "positive" reviews when in fact it was panned by The Guardian critic. The article clearly needs more work before it can be featured, if it should be featured at all given the apparent errors. Gatoclass (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Gatoclass I've begun working on a summary of the books contents, its been a while sinces I've read the book so I'll have to look over it again Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Pinging nominator OlifanofmrTennant, reviewer Figureskatingfan, and promoter PrimalMustelid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There has been no improvement of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I feel that their has been improvement of the article I've just been struggling to find content supported backed up by sources.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Upon reviewing policy I belive that it would be covered under WP:DYKCITEQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The summary is extremely short, to the point of remaining woefully incomplete. Still fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Time to pass on this as the nominator just isn't accepting what they are being told.4meter4 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I've expanded it a bit how much would be needed? I fear that to much would just be a mini biography of Jack Kirby. It took me a while to begin writing the summary as I didnt have my copy at the time.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
OlifanofmrTennant The summary needs to present a complete but not overly detailed picture of the book's entire plot. It should provide enough detail to give the reader a general picture of the book's contents. It should not be too vague (which it currently is) nor should it be overly detailed. It should be a summary. See MOS:PLOT and Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance. I would suggest removing the bulleted point by chapter. It isn't entirely necessary to break down the content into chapters. It would be better to concentrate on narrative. What is the story being told? Summarize that story. Since this is a biography it should be biographical. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article on summaries for non-fiction such as biographies. It might be helpful to think about how you would summarize the book if you were writing for a summary on the book jacket of the back of the book, or if you were having to write a book summary for an English class, or an abstract for a journal article book review in which a summary is provided as part of a review. All of those require narrative and details but still succinct writing with an overview scope. You should be able to craft one or two paragraps of prose that summarizes the book's narrative arc. 4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominator has not made any movement on this since the above discussion. It's time to close this for failing WP:DYKCOMPLETE.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I have. I've just been struggling to do so as I havent written a book article before.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I took a re-look and I think the summary is now sufficiently in-depth to pass WP:DYKCOMPLETE. I would have preferred a paragraph structure with smoother prose, but that is no reason to hold up a DYK review. All other DYK criteria check out. However, portions of both the Alt1 and Alt2 hook facts are not currently in the article. The quote "nowhere near finished" is not in the article, and there is no mention of a friendship between Evanier and Kirby. For this reason, only the original hook can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I made a few new hooks as those arent the best. Also since ALT0 is wrong I rephrased it. Also ALT2 is included now.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
OlifanofmrTennant Please add citations directly after each hook fact. Any sentence with a fact in a hook must have a citation to pass DYK review. In just rechecking Alt2, the sentence with the hook fact lacks a citation and the text that's in quotes in the hook is not in quotes in the article. Is this a quote? If it is it needs to be in quotes in the article's prose. If it's not a quote then it should not be in quotes within the hook sentence. I'm not going to even look at the other hooks until you have fixed this one and can assure me all the necessary citations are in place. Ping me when you are ready.4meter4 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: its there, its the gaurdian source. But reguardless I used the citation again higher in the paragraph.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant In looking at the Alt2 hook fact, it is not a quote of Evanier directly but it is a quote of The Guardian. The text needs to attribute it to The Guardian in quotes in both the article and the hook, or its a problem with WP:Plagiarism. This needs to be fixed. We can't promote an article with plagiarism issues. Now that I've seen this, I'm going to have to go through all the sources and make sure there aren't other issues of non-attributed text or close paraphrasing. I had trusted the original reviewer had done this, but I'm going to have to re-review with a careful eye on any copyright violations. In the mean time, please put the attributions for this quote in the article. Also, I was asking earlier for you to confirm that all the citations were in place for the many alt hooks you proposed. I don't want to have to keep coming back here and asking again for more citations. Every hook fact must have a citation immediately following the sentence of the hook fact. This may mean we duplicate citations in ways that we may not do when not featuring an article at DYK. This is one of those hoops that DYK requires, even if it seems redundant.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

New reviewer needed. I'm not seeing any more close paraphrasing, but I'd like a second set of eyes on this just to make sure I didn't miss anything.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any either. Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer, OlifanofmrTennant, 4meter4, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm having to reopening this, as it looks like the point made by Gatoclass above, that the hook mentions that Evanier "obtained" artworks from Kirby "while working for him" was not addressed, and that hook is not supported by the article. All I can see is "Evanier worked for Kirby and was a friend of his, giving him additional insight while writing the book", which isn't the same thing. On a more minor note, the second paragraph of the "Development" section is cited entirely to the book itself, which would be a WP:PRIMARY source. For a statement like "Kirby's family re-obtained the art following a public campaign to have them returned and legal threats from Kirby" I'd think a secondary source highly preferable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

the issues above are still not addressed, this is the third time it's been mentioned now. The only change to the article since my issue was raised above, was to add a couple more cites, but the problem is thathte article does not say anything about him obtaining works from Kirby while working from him. Come on please, the objections need to be addressed directly. Given that this has already been marked as "rejected" twice above and issues still remain more than two months later, it may be getting close to time to archive this and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot approve ALT4, as the article says "additional insight" and the hook says "lots of original art", and these are not the same thing. ALT5 checks out, although a) I just had to merge two sentences together to meet WP:DYKHFC and b) I just had to correct a spelling mistake in the hook. Let's roll.--Launchballer 11:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:DYKIMG, this should probably run without the image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 I'm usually the one whining about poor image quality, but I don't see any problems with this one. What is your objection? RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The bit about "try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article"—the hook is about the book, but we don't want everyone to see the picture and go to Kirby's article instead. That would be a waste of the image slot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, that makes perfect sense, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Noting here that I haven't promoted this hook because I still feel, as I did in this diff (quickly reverted), that the "Summary" section doesn't actually describe the contents of the book, but rather the contents of Jack Kirby, and that it in any case needs to be cited as it doesn't fall under WP:PLOTCITE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 Given that its a non fiction book that is about Kirby I think that its fair. Also the book is cited in Kirbys article multiple times so that might explain some overlap. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The article still has uncited paragraphs about Jack Kirby's life, with no indication that they are even from the book. This fails WP:DYKCITE. After nearly three months it is time to close this as rejected. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kirby:_King_of_Comics&oldid=1225417162"