Template:Did you know nominations/David Wong (writer)

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: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

David Wong (writer)

edit

Created/expanded by Esemono (talk). Self nom at 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I knew who this was without even looking at the hook; awesome. However, the article has issues. Firstly, the only source dealing with Wong as a writer and not his work is from adhominem, which doesn't look like a reliable source. Two other sources are questionable, from RevolutionSF and Jodie Lee into the mirror. Secondly, you need a reference for the fact that he is a post-modern writer. Third, the content of the article has pretty much nothing on the man; most of it is a rehash of information at John Dies at the End. These all need to be fixed.
Summary: Referencing and length issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Removed the post-modern tag in the infobox. Adhominem seems to have an editorial staff and large group of writers. I will look for more info on "the man". -- Esemono (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • K, I think I'll accept Ad Hominem for this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • added more sources and expanded on non-movie/book related material. -- Esemono (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Title formatting on the adhominem reference needs to be fixed (at least capitalise David Wong). Also, some of the language is a little flowery ("spending his days checking insurance claims for typos", for example). This could use a comb through to make it more encyclopedic. I've checked paraphrasing against the adhominem interview. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Not yet, the language still reads rather flowery  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks acceptable now (I've done a fairly large copyedit)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)