Template:Did you know nominations/Eduardo Garcia (chef)

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Eduardo Garcia (chef)[edit]

(

)

... ~~that "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia says losing an arm to electrocution has helped his career?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Coppery-tailed coucal
Comment: I realize this submissionis a couple days late, and if the reviewer chose to reject it on those grounds I will accept it. However, I would like to plead the case: unlike many articles, Garcia presents a genuinely interesting hook. When I accepted the AfC draft, I knew I wante dto nominate it and could have immediately sent it here despite some obvious flaws in the article. I would have then been given an indefinite amount of time to fix it and no one would have questioned why it took a week to get to. Instead, I decided to wait until after I fixed the problems to nominate. Unfortunately I got busy in real life, and missed 7 day deadline. I hope for the sake of the new user who wrote the article, my slowness can be overlooked.

Moved to mainspace by Assistbragman (talk), ThaddeusB (talk). Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk) at 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

Comment: Though it's loosely used to mean any electrical shock, electrocution should really be reserved for shocks which result in death. I've altered the article to reflect this. How about: — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

ALT1: ... ~~that "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia says that losing an arm to an electric shock has helped his career?~~

ALT1 looks great, thanks for pointing that out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that, while in the hospital for the shock, turned out he had cancer and had to undergo chemotherapy. Now, that's quirky. There must be a hook in that. Stand by... EEng (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to choose with this guy. How about:

ALT2: ... ~~that with the prosthetic arm he had fitted after an electrical accident, "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia has "superpowers – I can grab things out of an oven and not get burnt"?~~

But there are potential problems. (1) The Mail is often questioned as a RS. (2) The Mail piece refers to his bionic "hand" but it's apparently at least the lower arm. I hope these things can be cleared out of the way because the hooks are great, if I may say so myself -- everyone will click just to see the arm/hand. EEng (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. There's a punctuation change in the ALT2's quote, but that's well within contextual discretion.

I would suggest

ALT2a: ... that with the prosthetic arm he had fitted after an electrical accident, "bionic chef" Eduardo Garcia has "superpowers"?

Under the principle that "less is more" - people will wonder what "superpowers" he has and click. As to The Mail, I do not believe they actually did any original reporting (as is often the case), but rather compiled interesting tidbits from other reporting. In this case, the quote comes from Good Morning America, so I've swapped out the sourcing. (I've also added some new material from other video sources.) Most of the sources do say "hand" or use "arm" and "hand" interchangeably (including The Mail source), although obviously it is a hand+arm combo. My assumption would be that since the hand is so crucial to being a chef, sources put emphasis on it. I would think that is an obvious enough adjustment to the sourcing (similar to "electric shock" as opposed to "electrocution") to fall within normal editorial judgement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right in general re less is more, though in this particular case I think that the desire to learn more about the specific image of reaching into the over would probably restore the lost clicks. I don't have time today to help with this specifically, but one of the sources talked about how he was unhappy with one prosthesis (hand?) and so switched to another (hook?). As you may know I've taken on the role of fact-check bogeyman at DYK recently, so let's make sure whatever we say in the hook is ironclad (so to speak) -- we could say "prosthesis" as a copout but that very much blunts the, um, hook, um... oh... bad mix of wording there, in several ways. Ouch. EEng (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT2 or ALT2a is fine by me. I added the "unhappy" content today. In the Sept-Dec interviews he was using the five-finger hand prosthesis. In the January interview he did the interview with the hand and switched to the hook for the cooking. In the Katie interview - the most recent - he said something like "I used a five-finger hand for a few months but it wasn't water proof and I kept nicking it... the bionic hook attachment works better for cooking." So, he uses the five-finger hand in everyday life and the hook hand to cook now. I'm not sure any of this affects ALT2/2a though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a pic now. Not sure if it is desirable to show it with the hook or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Review of ALT2/ALT2a (and decision on which to use) needed, since EEng can't promote his own hook. Also, pic needs checked. --14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(Sigh) - yet another nom with lots of chat about hooks only, and no full review yet. So here goes. Nomination date accepted (moved to mainspace 13 June, nom 23 June, explanation accepted AGF). It is long enough. QPQ done. The text is objective and neutral, and fully-referenced. In response to above comments, I have struck the original hook and ALT2 because they have been superseded, and I struck ALT1 because the citation does not quite fit. That leaves ALT2a which is hooky enough, short enough, and checks out online with citation #7. External links for citations #1 to #7 were checked for copyvio; one found (see issue 3 below); citations #8 to #15 and external links section not checked. Issues: (1) ~~Typos - "he at a Japanese cafe called Saitos", "simple explatory", "Garcia was fit", ""being shopped", "under served communities" (do you mean deprived?)~~ (2) I have deleted File:Eduardo Garcia post-injury in the kitchen.jpg from this template because I see no evidence that it is free (if I am wrong, it can of course be re-instated). It is undated, but was clearly taken since 2011 when Garcia lost his arm. There is no letter yet provided to say that the author has given permission for free use. The uploader simply says that the image was sent to him. Therefore the image is at risk of an imminent SD tag, ~~and cannot to be used in the article if this nomination is to continue.~~ (3) ~~Re spot checks for possible copyvio or close paraphrasing, one duplicatated passage found: "love for the outdoors to promote a healthy active" (citation #1).~~ When issues 1-3 have been resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article. "Being shopped" is probably an American-ism, but is correct (and since the subject is an American, also appropriate). See, for example, [1]. I fixed the one close phrase. The picture was uploaded by a representative of Garcia at my request, and I made sure they understood the copyright implications. I can OTRS the email if necessary. I don't particularly care about this nomination (I think it may be stronger w/o a pic), but do wish to retain it in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@ ThaddeusB. Thank you for your edits - I have struck issues 1 and 3. I agree that "shopped" must be American slang, so I have struck the request to change it. The problem with slang is that it can offend or confuse English speakers in other countries. That is why we have Standard English. In the UK "shopped" is used in a dishonourable or casual sense, as in "he shopped his own brother to the police" (meaning betrayal) or "he shopped around", meaning that he searched casually for a good sale or a cheap buy. (There was an archaic usage meaning "went to buy in stores" but that is rarely used now). So to the UK reader it would be more pleasant if the article said "sold", "franchised", "rented" etc. instead of "shopped". Your choice, and it will not affect DYK. Regarding the image: So long as the image remains in the article, I cannot pass this nom until the image has a valid licence - sorry - even if I did, I believe that admin would check the image and say the same thing. As I understand it, you need to ask the copyright-owner, Fifteen Minutes PR, to write to WP with permission to use the image. --Storye book (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Shopped around" would mean "offered for sale to various parties". I wouldn't call it slang, just a different usage of the word. I'm open to different wording, just unsure how to do it - perhaps I need to break this into two sentences as I don't know any other succient wording. (Sold, rented, or franchised would not capture the proper sense of what happened.) How does "As of 2013, Garcia was actively trying to find a network interested in airing the show." As far as the picture, I will wait on OTRS permissioning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have now messaged the uploader Assistbragman with details of how to resolve the problem about the image. --Storye book (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ThaddeusB. I agree we do need a re-write so that we can all understand. I am happy with your new suggested version. --Storye book (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As it doesn't look like Assistbragman intends to return (I'm a mind-reader; you are thinking of the number seven, no...three, no...eight. Now I'm getting an image; it's a girl with tape over her mouth; hey. that's me!) I've removed the image form the article. Storye book does it pass like this? Belle (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Belle. All issues resolved. Good to go with ALT2a. --Storye book (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)