Template:Did you know nominations/Exdeath
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Exdeath
- ... that Final Fantasy's "first great villain" has been compared to characters like the Green Goblin and the Joker? Source: [1] [2]
- Reviewed:
Moved to mainspace by Kung Fu Man (talk). Nominated by DetriaSkies (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.detriaskies 22:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC).
The article is new but not long, thanks to the presence of that maintenance template demanding a section expansion and a lede merely consisting of an opening sentence. It has an image licensed for fair use but lacks a suitable caption, as well as a few questionable sources, such as RPGamer (cite 14). Furthermore, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns (assuming good faith on non-English language sources) and the hook is cited and is fine. Nominator is exempted from doing a QPQ, but they should be credited on this DYK as the "nominator" as opposed to mainspace mover, who is actually User:Kung Fu Man (diff). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be an expand template on this any more. Lede would still deserve {{lead too short}}, but updating icon.--Launchballer 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Kung Fu Man: Can there be some movement on this please?--Launchballer 16:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @DetriaSkies: - didn't ping properly.--Launchballer 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and expanded the lead section with information pertaining to his Reception. I hope this is alright since I'm not too closely involved with the Exdeath article, but I hope it helps in any case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fine by me, passing back to Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. I do notice he mentions RPGamer being questionable and that's still in the article.--Launchballer 07:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I was actually called out by Kung Fu Man in my talk for calling that source unreliable (and deservedly so): apparently, WP:VG/S says otherwise. So, mea culpa. Granted, the claim about the character receiving a "mixed reception" needs a reliable, third party source before I can pass this. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I gave it a go, but did not find any sources mentioning any mixed reception. Any commentary on the character I did find was hardly mixed. Coverage of this character seems to be mainly positive, the only criticism calling him a cliched villain. (Retro Gamer issue saying this.) Kung Fu Man is better versed in this subject than I am, they may know of a source for this that I missed. Also I already mentioned this on Nineteen Ninety-Four Guy's talk page, but apologies for misattributing myself as the article author. If I knew where to discuss the nomination form, I would request the field to be moved closer to the actual article fields, as it just seems like a poor design choice to have the article credit not with the status field. detriaskies 23:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Getting rid of that topic sentence works also; it's synthesis anyway. Let's see if Kung Fu Man concurs. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Generally with character articles it's the norm to include a starting line explaining a summary of the reception a character received be it positive, negative, or mixed. While there is some praise, sources [11] and [12] (particularly 12) are more critical of the character, and even more positive sources also voice criticism. This is similar wording I've used in many other articles without any issue of synthesis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this only proves that it does badly need an RS; using other articles to justify an edit not in conformity with WP's guidelines is bad practice. Either back that up with a source or get rid of it. Your call. Otherwise, my nom rejection stands. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- If I remove it, when I get to GAN I'll just have the reviewer requesting such a statement be present, I've written enough of these to expect that. Removing it to appease you then add it back later to appease the majority defeats the point, no offense meant. So if it fails DYK, it does.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like there is a much larger issue at hand if one editor is calling it synthesis while another says GAN reviewers request it. detriaskies 16:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- If I remove it, when I get to GAN I'll just have the reviewer requesting such a statement be present, I've written enough of these to expect that. Removing it to appease you then add it back later to appease the majority defeats the point, no offense meant. So if it fails DYK, it does.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this only proves that it does badly need an RS; using other articles to justify an edit not in conformity with WP's guidelines is bad practice. Either back that up with a source or get rid of it. Your call. Otherwise, my nom rejection stands. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Generally with character articles it's the norm to include a starting line explaining a summary of the reception a character received be it positive, negative, or mixed. While there is some praise, sources [11] and [12] (particularly 12) are more critical of the character, and even more positive sources also voice criticism. This is similar wording I've used in many other articles without any issue of synthesis.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Getting rid of that topic sentence works also; it's synthesis anyway. Let's see if Kung Fu Man concurs. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I gave it a go, but did not find any sources mentioning any mixed reception. Any commentary on the character I did find was hardly mixed. Coverage of this character seems to be mainly positive, the only criticism calling him a cliched villain. (Retro Gamer issue saying this.) Kung Fu Man is better versed in this subject than I am, they may know of a source for this that I missed. Also I already mentioned this on Nineteen Ninety-Four Guy's talk page, but apologies for misattributing myself as the article author. If I knew where to discuss the nomination form, I would request the field to be moved closer to the actual article fields, as it just seems like a poor design choice to have the article credit not with the status field. detriaskies 23:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I was actually called out by Kung Fu Man in my talk for calling that source unreliable (and deservedly so): apparently, WP:VG/S says otherwise. So, mea culpa. Granted, the claim about the character receiving a "mixed reception" needs a reliable, third party source before I can pass this. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fine by me, passing back to Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. I do notice he mentions RPGamer being questionable and that's still in the article.--Launchballer 07:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and expanded the lead section with information pertaining to his Reception. I hope this is alright since I'm not too closely involved with the Exdeath article, but I hope it helps in any case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Just a quick note, as someone who write a lot of reception sections on various media. I think we have to remember what "mixed" means. It does not mean "medium". It means "it varied". So, it's not really that tall of a hurdle to warrant its use. Any time you have some both positive and negative sentiments you can pretty much rightfully include it. And honestly, with the way many editor tend to POV-push positive sentiments for things they like (or the opposite for things they dislike) I think its honestly commendable that a more neutral route was taken here. Unless there's actually good-faith confusion on whether or not there is both positive and negative sentiments present in the section, I don't believe its WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I'm not convinced, however, so I shall update the icon in light of these developments. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and IAR overrule this as the article is better for leading with it, and the statement is quite clearly sourced throughout the paragraph; the alternative is a WP:CLUMP or a long note, both of which would be redundant. There are however unsourced statements in the Appearances section.--Launchballer 18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)