Template:Did you know nominations/A Can of Paint
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
nomination withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
A Can of Paint
[edit]... that the hero in A.E. van Vogt's "A Can of Paint" accidentally splashes himself with alien paint, and has to remove it before it kills him?
- Reviewed: Project Y
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 16:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
- >
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - The source of the hook is a quotation from a negative review by Damon Knight, and the offline citation for that can be accepted AGF.
- Interesting: - y
It's a great hook if it can be backed up (see below) - Other problems: - y
Without the quotation from Damon Knight we would need a definition of "perfect paint" because the Plot section in the article only shows the paint being ultra-efficient in certain areas but the result is a nuisance (you cant get it off your skin) or it causes discomfort (an over-efficient insulator). The Publication section describes Damon Knight's review as dismissive and ridiculing, which gives the impression that his review contains only personal opinion. So I think we still need to find a source for "perfect" and "before it kills him" in the plot. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the ideas and questions raised in early sci-fi, and this comment is not about undoing the hook or the article. It's about clarification and sources.I think that you only need to add to the plot section, saying that the paint is perfect because ... and that the protagonist thinks it will kill him because ...(Update: please mention in Plot section that story uses phrase "perfect paint" and that protagonist thinks it will kill him - with references.Storye book (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC))
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Storye book (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Storye book: The story repeatedly uses the phrase "perfect paint", which is, I assume, why Knight uses it too. But I am more interested in the "AGF" part, are you not able to see the quote? I am. Perhaps try going to the URL in Google Books and then type "paint"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Maury Markowitz. I went through all the reference links, and I found a mention of the protagonist's fear of being killed by the paint in the last reference. I still cannot find an online quotation of Damon Knight's review, but AGF for that review is fine by me anyway. Since, as you say, the story uses the phrase "perfect paint", please could we have that fact mentioned in the Plot section, with a reference? This is a worthwhile article, so it's worth making sure it gets accepted for DYK. Storye book (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok I added that, but you don't normally cite the work in the plot section, so I'm not sure what we have achieved. Let's just remove "perfect" from the hook and be done with this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Maury Markowitz. I went through all the reference links, and I found a mention of the protagonist's fear of being killed by the paint in the last reference. I still cannot find an online quotation of Damon Knight's review, but AGF for that review is fine by me anyway. Since, as you say, the story uses the phrase "perfect paint", please could we have that fact mentioned in the Plot section, with a reference? This is a worthwhile article, so it's worth making sure it gets accepted for DYK. Storye book (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your plot section edit. I'm happy with that. Storye book (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Returned from prep. The hook does not satisfy WP:DYKSG#C6. Moreover, 67% of the article (2910 char out of 4337 char) is unsourced plot. IMO this needs more detail to satisfy WP:DYKSG#D7. Yoninah (talk)
- Thanks, Yoninah, for the heads up. I should have noticed those things. Storye book (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz:. Please could we have an ALT hook which involves the real world in some way? To get the article accepted for DYK, please could you kindly expand it with more sourced detail, other than plot? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Yoninah, for the heads up. I should have noticed those things. Storye book (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1: ...that decades after it was written, in 2004 A.E. van Vogt's "A Can of Paint" was turned into a movie about a an accidental paint spill?
- 7 appears to have no application to this entry and I have no idea what Yoninah is on about. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @ Maury Markowitz. It's D7, not C7 - that threw me, too, initially. As I understand it, D7 is in connection with Yoninah's comment that the article is mostly plot and not enough of other sourced material.Storye book (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's just it, I checked D7 and I still have no idea how that is supposed to apply to this case. D7 is about the article basically being complete - and this article is complete, likely to be stable, has no empty sections. That's what D7 talks about. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @ Maury Markowitz. I cannot speak for Yoninah, but I understand the comment and WP reference to mean that the proportion of plot is too high in relation to other sourced material in the article - so we need to find more sourced material that is not plot. The following are only my own suggestions - I'm sure you can think of something better. For example you might: look at the other sci-fi stories written by the same author (or other sci-fi written in the same period) and place A Can of Paint in that context, e.g. is it one of a string of stories about scary new household goods and equipment - or is it unusual and before its time of 1944? Is it significant that it's written during World War II? Is it possible to expand the movie section, e.g. using this source? Or perhaps a section on the author and the Space Opera theme and what that has to do with A Can of Paint? This source may give a clue?. I'm sure you will have better ideas, but there are some ideas out there to play with, anyway. Storye book (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again, @Maury Markowitz:, @Storye book: I cited WP:DYKSG#C6 because the original hook is just recounting the plot; ALT1 is much more in line with the "real world". I cited WP:DYKSG#D7 because I don't think the article is complete – namely in terms of notability. There is no indication in the lead as to why it is notable, and I believe that adding more sourced material might solve that problem. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well NOTE and D7 are entirely different issues. If this is a NOTE issue, then van Vogt clearly meets (5), the story has been republished in several anthologies, is mentioned in a widely recognized critical work, gets mentioned in strange places like engineering articles and astronomy books, and even made into a movie. I believe it easily meets NOTE. In any event, why is NOTE being discussed in DYK?Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because if the article isn't Wikipedia-worthy, it isn't DYK-worthy. Why don't you add some of those good sources to the lead? Yoninah (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- References in the lede? What? There are good sources in the body, and always have been. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Maury Markowitz, I'm happy with ALT1. I agree with Yoninah that if you were to add to the lead para the fact that the story is mentioned in anthologies, critical work, engineering articles and astronomy books, and that it has been made into a movie, then that would resolve the notability issue. You do not need to reference all these in the lead para if the refs are already in the body. However it would be helpful for DYK if you were to reference the movie in the lead, to back up the hook. Storye book (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The lede already mentions those. The hook is cited in the body. ALT1 passes C6. What is left to do? Copy a ref into the lede? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- What we are looking to do is to get this article, about the kind of sci-fi story which a lot of us enjoy, through DYK. If we have to jump through hoops to get it through, let's jump through the hoops. Yoninah has told us what needs to be done to achieve that result. If we don't do it, it won't get into DYK. It's that simple. The header needs a little more information (as listed above) about the notability. The body needs a lower proportion of plot, and a higher proportion of referenced non-plot information. It's an article with good potential, about a likeable subject - it's worth the extra effort. Storye book (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The lede already mentions those. The hook is cited in the body. ALT1 passes C6. What is left to do? Copy a ref into the lede? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Maury Markowitz, I'm happy with ALT1. I agree with Yoninah that if you were to add to the lead para the fact that the story is mentioned in anthologies, critical work, engineering articles and astronomy books, and that it has been made into a movie, then that would resolve the notability issue. You do not need to reference all these in the lead para if the refs are already in the body. However it would be helpful for DYK if you were to reference the movie in the lead, to back up the hook. Storye book (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- References in the lede? What? There are good sources in the body, and always have been. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Because if the article isn't Wikipedia-worthy, it isn't DYK-worthy. Why don't you add some of those good sources to the lead? Yoninah (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well NOTE and D7 are entirely different issues. If this is a NOTE issue, then van Vogt clearly meets (5), the story has been republished in several anthologies, is mentioned in a widely recognized critical work, gets mentioned in strange places like engineering articles and astronomy books, and even made into a movie. I believe it easily meets NOTE. In any event, why is NOTE being discussed in DYK?Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Storye book: I find it difficult to know what "more" and "lower" mean, exactly. Perhaps you can point me to the rules on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know it doesn't come down to precise wordage or numbers of characters. It's about ending up with more non-plot information than there is now - preferably a bigger non-plot section than plot section. The simple option is to shorten or condense the plot section, and write more of the other information (with citations). Some suggestions for expanding the non-plot section might be: historical context of story, more about the film - or whatever is appropriate. Are you able to access the comments about the book that are in references 3, 4 and 5? It would be helpful to get quotations from those. Storye book (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, so Yoninah states a number above, but it turns out there is no rule on the number (which he states with the "IMHO"). So how can I be sure that any edit I make will not be subject to another "well, that's 60%, but it has to be more"? I need some boundaries here or I fear this will go on forever. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Maury, I cannot personally give you the precise numbers that you want. I guess most of use just use common sense. @Yoninah: - can you help? Storye book (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, so Yoninah states a number above, but it turns out there is no rule on the number (which he states with the "IMHO"). So how can I be sure that any edit I make will not be subject to another "well, that's 60%, but it has to be more"? I need some boundaries here or I fear this will go on forever. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This process clearly indicates I don't have that. Withdrawn nom. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am sorry to hear that the process is getting in the way. Good luck with the next nom. Storye book (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)