Template:Did you know nominations/Well-Manicured Man

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Miyagawa (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well-Manicured Man

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the "unnervingly genteel" Well-Manicured Man calls to mind the works of Wagner?

• Reviewed: Adam Cunnington
• Comment: Nomination is for the 2012 WikiCup

Created/expanded by Grapple X (talk). Self nom at 09:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Article length, expansion and age are OK, I see no problems with source or copyvio, but....content is not accurate - citation in article does not say that WMM 'calls to mind the works of Wagner', only that one critic has called his monologue 'a Wagnerian demonstration of the art of declamation' (whatever that may mean) - Try a different hook?--Smerus (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Calls to mind the works of Wagner" is just a paraphrasing of his delivery being called "Wagnerian", but if citations have to be that precise then what about Alt1: ... that the Well-Manicured Man had his suicide contemplated for him?" GRAPPLE X 17:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is not clear to me exactly what this means - do you mean, for example, Alt2: ... that the scriptwriters for the television series The X-Files considered a variety of possible suicide methods for the character, the Well-Manicured Man ? --Smerus (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's precisely what I mean, but I've never found hooks that are just copied-and-pasted from an article to be interesting; I prefer to use something which is playful or snappy while still accurate to the sources. GRAPPLE X 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but does that square in this case with the criterion that the hook must be 'interesting'? In fact alt1 is just incomprehensible to people who 1) don't know that the WMM is from the X-Files and 2) are confronted with the tortuous phrase 'had his suicide contemplated for him'? I agree that playfulness is an asset, but not I think when it treads close to opaqueness. Then instead of being 'interesting' the hook becomes just annoying. You owe it to readers to give them some clue as to what you are on about. --Smerus (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• While I feel you might be underestimating readers (you may be right in the second hook not being obviously discernible as a play on the phrase "to contemplate suicide, but I don't feel that every fictional entity needs to be identified with its parent work right up front), how about another alt instead. Alt3: ... that the Well-Manicured Man served as the "voice of reason" amongst The X-Files' antagonists?" GRAPPLE X 13:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alt3: ... that the Well-Manicured Man served as the "voice of reason" amongst The X-Files' antagonists?" seems AOK to me in all respects--Smerus (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)