Template:Did you know nominations/Fire Storm (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fire Storm (novel)[edit]

Created/expanded by Nikthestoned (talk). Self nom at 13:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I made some alterations and came up with another hook:
  • Nothing against the original hook, but I just want to connect two novels in one hook, that's all. --George Ho (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the longer hook squeezes the excitement out of it; a better direction would be shorter. Here's the original one's info, shortened further:
  • I think it's more likely to be a distraction than an enhancement, which was why I pulled it out in the first place, but it's up to Nikthestoned what he'd like to go with. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'd say ALT3 is what I'd go for, though I'm not sure about using "the eruption", should it not be "an"? I'm not aware of it being based on any specific real-life event... Nikthestoned 20:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Fixed that for you. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs a complete review now that a hook has been settled on. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough at the time of nomination. QPQ done. Image has fair use rationale. Article minus plot part is completely supported by inline citations.
  • Symbol question.svg Dead link needs to be resolved.
  • Symbol question.svg DYK hook is a plot point. It looks like this was cited to have a source. Second source is from a random book review on the internet which uses Mediawiki to host reviews. Reading the about page, not sure why this source should be considered reliable or even worth mentioning. Article sourcing looks... icky. WorldCat, a book review that doesn't seem important, the book itself, a dead link and one other source that I'd rank as reliable. The sourcing for this article needs a lot of improvement.
  • Symbol question.svg Article appears to have WP:NPOV or WP:OR. "The novel was well received." just does not feel supported as there are two reviews, and one of them is from a site that says they rarely give negative reviews. --LauraHale (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Fix dead link. Added more sources and sources that are more neutral. Improve NPOV or OR by adding more reviews that support the statement. --LauraHale (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Removed "well received" statement, agree this was not supported. I really don't see an issue with the sourcing on this article, it's enough to establish notability and other than the removed statement, there's nothing controversial about it at all. The hook is a plot point, which doesn't really need a source but I provided a google-books link anyway - this is surely sufficient to support the above, this isn't GAN or anything... Same applies to the deadlink - it's nothing to do with this DYK. Nikthestoned 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In some ways, DYK is fussier about sourcing than GA is. By definition, the facts cited in the hook must have an inline citation in the article, even if they're plot points. (Hooks on a work of fiction also must have some real-world connection.) Usually, you can get these from reviews if necessary. Further, DYK requires each paragraph to have a valid, active source cited. Since your awards section's single entry (the Southampton shortlist sentence) does not have a valid, active source, I removed the section. If it were notable, there would be evidence of the shortlist somewhere online; WP:V applies here as well as DYK rules. Laura has a point about the Bookbag site: it does not appear to be a WP:RS by Wikipedia standards, but rather a review site by a pair of book fans. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing on my iPhone so apologies for typing and formatting errors. DYK has higher standards for. Citations than GA. An article can pass GA with raw URLs where it cannot pass on DYK with raw URLs . Plot points do not need to be cited but having. Items the book and another source, it really should not be the hook. The sourcing, if the dead link and book were removed leaves what? Three sources? This makes me really uncomfortable as I tend to expect at least five sources at DYK even if it is only five pages in two different books. What reliable sources were added? Once the random blog that posts only positive reviews was removed, what was the word count? How can you have criticism with only one source? That means the remaining review probably has POV issues in terms of sources selection. Would people normally nitpick this? Probably not as. They would never see it but it was brought to DYK, where the reviews, when done right, can be more thorough than GA. --LauraHale (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In this case:
ALT 5: ... that Colin Bateman's Fire Storm continues adventures of the fictional rescue team from Ice Quake?
Or maybe DYK has citation standards? --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
sourcing problems not fixed. May not pass on notability. Debating AfD as it seems like sources do not exist. -LauraHale (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Once the unreliable source is removed, article is too short: "Prose size (text only): 1393 characters (234 words) "readable prose size"". --LauraHale (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, in-universe notability might count as part of notability. Regardless of amount of out-of-universe notability, people's main purpose for an article about fiction is the fiction itself. I see that there is some decent balance of reception and plot, although minimum count of characters for DYK is not met yet. Also, the sequel is itself notable because of the sequel itself. Nevertheless, what is notability to you? WP:FICT can help, although it is now an essay. I'm sure that the author can clean up the mess. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If you feel comfortable removing the notability tag, passing an article that is now too short, that cites WorldCat, the book the article is about and one review, you can give it the tick to go. These three sources do not demonstrate notability in the article and the existing citation problems are still there for me. Citations need to be improved and notability needs to be addressed, ideally on the article by adding more sources, or on the talk page to explain why it is notable when it is not apparent in the article. But at the end of the day, you are free to over ride me and give this the tick to go. I'm not fussed if you over ride me here because not everyone agrees. Not happy because I think the sourcing is bad... but consensus isn't just me. --LauraHale (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I would feel very uncomfortable if this article were to receive a tick despite the reasons you've given, Laura. It's a fairly frequent occurrence that the first book or episode in a series will be notable, but subsequent ones do not get attention, and thus are not notable in their own right. Also, Wikipedia continually stresses that in-universe focus is to be avoided—fiction articles need to have significant grounding in the real world—so that's a road we shouldn't pursue: even in DYK, hooks about fiction articles must have a real-world element to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:N, if in-universe notability does not guarantee a stand-alone article, then I guess we can merge this article and its successor into an article about the SOS Adventures series itself, which could discuss all three. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have put this article up for merger proposal. --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Insoluble notability problems in the article as currently constituted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)