Template:Did you know nominations/X-Men Gold, X-Men Blue


 * 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) 05:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

X-Men Gold, X-Men Blue

 * ... that the 2017 comics series X-Men Gold and X-Men Blue take their titles from a storyline from the early 1990s? Source: Diaz, Eric (October 16, 2016), "Marvel Announces the Return of the X-Men: Blue and Gold Teams in 2017," Nerdist. Retrieved June 14, 2017
 * Reviewed: Lamborghini Asterion and Lancaster West Estate
 * Comment: X-Men Blue was created June 12. X-Men Gold was expanded from a redirect June 14. Nomination created June 15.

Created by Argento Surfer (talk) and Jericoezekiel (talk). Nominated by Argento Surfer (talk) at 12:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

I wanted to like this but find that the content needs an extensive rewrite. There's just about nothing in there about the original X-Men Blue/Gold teams and instead we just have an extended plug/trailer for a remake which seems to contravene WP:NOTADVERTISING. For example, the source which supports the hook is just a rehash of a product announcement which was written in advance of publication. Note also the extensive coverage of the sacking of one of the artists which seems to be a significant BLP issue and contravenes WP:DYK guidelines, "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." Andrew D. (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would there be lots in the articles about the original teams? These aren't remakes - they're new books that came out in April starring new teams that happen to be named after the ones from 20 years ago. Heaven forbid a source stating an unchanging fact be dated prior to release, right? There's also not "extensive" coverage about a firing. There's coverage about a controversy that was reported in The Atlantic and the LA Times. The firing is exactly one line, which says the artist was fired. That's not extensive or undue focus.
 * I also take issue with you calling these advertisements. Could you please explain that? There's no puffery - the sole content discussing reception is a single line that flatly states their average score from a review aggregator. I re-read them, and I also don't see anything that's not objective. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear what you say but don't agree. As the articles have not been improved significantly, my review rating is unchanged. Andrew D. (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on what significant improvement you want. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time for a full review at the moment, but I find it patently absurd to call this a BLP violation. That controversy was huge; enough that I heard about it, and I do not take any interest in comic books, as a rule. It is presented neutrally, is only about 30% of the prose in the article, and is sourced. Anything else would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Vanamonde (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Second opinion needed. Original reviewer seems uninterested in explaining or reconsidering his concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles are new enough (blue: new; gold: former redirect), long enough, neutral, no copyvios found, QPQs done. Above concerns don't seem to be an issue; the controversy is valid, citing to a press release doesn't make the WP articles themselves press pieces, and the fact that a new series is inspired by an old series doesn't mean one shouldn't focus on the new series instead. Three relatively minor issues:
 * Both articles state that "The new titles were announced October 16, 2016," yet I don't see that date in the sources. One of the sources links to a Marvel announcement, which is dated the 21st.
 * I've changed the date to the 21st. Not sure how I mixed that up... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both articles state that "subsequent issues were released twice monthly," but I don't see mentions to them being issued twice monthly (or bi-weekly) in the sources.
 * Source added that specifies the release schedule. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How about adding a list per article with the eight gold/blue issues, their numbers, release dates, and so on? Incidentally, this could demonstrate that they are, indeed, issued twice monthly. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This will take me a little bit. I'm not super proficient with tables, but I'm sure I can get one made up. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good. I still recommend adding the tables when you get a chance—it shouldn't be too hard, and once you have one you can just copy its structure over to the other article—but the nomination is good to go. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)