Template:Did you know nominations/My Favorite Thing Is Monsters

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 by Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Missing plot summary

My Favorite Thing Is Monsters[edit]

(

)

... that Emil Ferris worked on the graphic novel My Favorite Thing Is Monsters to help her recover from paralysis? Source: "This book has been this massive process tied to my recovery," says Ferris of her experience working on the graphic novel. "When I say 'art healed me,' it really healed me!"
- ALT1:... that the graphic novel My Favorite Thing Is Monsters is considered to be one of the best of 2017? Source: "this debut graphic novel from Emil Ferris is already being acclaimed as one of the best, most ambitious comics of the year, with praise from Art Spiegelman, Alison Bechdel and Chris Ware; not to mention NPR, The New York Times and other publications"
- ALT2:... that creating the graphic novel My Favorite Thing Is Monsters' 700 pages took the author six years, 16-hour days, and extreme frugality? Source: "Six years or so ago I began drawing ... while working 16-hour days and living extremely frugally"

Converted from a redirect by Opencooper (talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC).

I would suggest the original hook be used as it seems to me the most interesting. I could not find any issues. The hook is supported through the source, it is new enough, and the length of the article checks out. I see no potential problems that prevent this from being put on the main page in the future. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is tagged for lack of a plot summary. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm the one who left it there as I haven't read the comic yet since creating the article. As far as I'm aware, the eligibility criteria doesn't have any requirements about essential information other than a minimum length. Opencooper (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Opencooper: Well, there's a bit more to the rules than that :) If an article has undeveloped sections that have been tagged, we generally wait for it to be expanded a bit. If you like, I could ask the members of the project about it on the DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The whole "waiting" thing doesn't work considering DYK nominations need to be "new enough". I thought the whole point of DYK was to highlight new articles, which clearly would be articles still needing work and not GA or Featured articles right out of the gate. If the plot section is a problem for you, you can remove the empty section or write your own. I'll add a plot when I get to reading the comic but I don't see it as something urgent. The point of rules isn't to create your own bureaucracy and hurdles—DYK is already an annoying enough process with all the requirements as it already is. If this article being "underdeveloped" (interesting turn of phrase considering all the time I put into the production and reception sections, which you don't see on most comics articles which are mainly plot and trivia instead) is a problem, you can just fail this DYK then. I don't like jumping through hoops everywhere I go on Wikipedia and I must have misunderstood the purpose of DYK. Opencooper (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Once you have made the nomination, the newness is based on that date in comparison with the article's creation (new)/expansion (5x)/listing (GA) date. This qualifies as new, and will continue to do so for as long as the nomination is being reviewed. Some nominations take weeks before all of the issues raised in the review have been addressed; we are always happy to work with nominators. I've read the article and it is impressive so far, but for completeness it needs, if not a plot, at least a synopsis of the story, which is intrinsic to what the graphic novel is. What it can't have is a completely empty section; the DYK guidelines are very clear on this point. Given all the sources, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a synopsis over the next little while, which can later be turned into a full-fledged Plot section once you've read it yourself. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a synopsis is a necessary element. The New Yorker source alone probably has enough information for creating a brief synopsis. Gatoclass (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment – I moved this entry from the DYK approved page back to the DYK nomination page as per the concerns presented in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to add a plot or synopsis to the article in the past four weeks, despite a follow-up post to the nominator's page seven days ago. The DYK rules are quite specific about incomplete articles with unexpanded sections; see WP:DYKSG#D7. Regretfully, this is being marked for closure; if a plot/synopsis is created before this closes, let us know here and the review can continue. Alternatively, should this article be listed as a Good Article, it can be nominated again at DYK within seven days of being listed. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)