Talk:Fuuto PI

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 reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 15:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• ... that Fuuto PI offers more adult themes than the its predecessor Kamen Rider W as a result of its magazine's demography?

• • ALT1: ... that in Fuuto PI the lead character Shotaro has a more prominent role than fellow character Philip, leading to more explorations of the protagonist's past than in Kamen Rider W? Source: ^[2]
  • ALT2: ... that Fuuto PI was originally going to be a short manga but it was extended due to positive sales in Japan? Source: ^[3]
  • Reviewed:

Tintor2 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC).

• Quick note, respectfully I don't think any of the proposed hooks are particularly interesting. All of those things are very typical of other media series. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: Giving this a shot. How do these sound?

ALT3 ... that Fuuto PI's manga format allowed the series to not be constrained by the Kamen Rider franchise's live-action special effects?

ALT4 ... that the manga series Fuuto PI used Die Hard and Blade Runner as inspirations in the creation of its villains?

Not sure if either works, but as it stands, the article is rather lacking in non-specialist broadly-interesting material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for making the hooks; I think they're better, but honestly still not too interesting. Here's my proposal:

ALT5: ... that media series Fuuto PI departed from its child-friendly predecessor Kamen Rider W by including elements like fan service and graphic violence? Source:

It's similar to the main hook but has those eye-catching phrases. I'm still not in love with it but can't think of anything better. @Tintor2: what do you think of the above hook?

Rest of the review: GA just before DYK nom, long enough, presentable, no significant issues, article is sourced, no copyvio in text or images. QPQ does not appear to have been done. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: Does any alt work? If so I don't see the need of a QPQ.Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I proposed Alt5 and it may be able to make it, but may pend others' input. What do you think of it? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Neat. Just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/First Jewish–Roman War. Feel free to revise it. I'm not skilled with this nominations Tintor2 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
  • While it's ok to not be skilled at things, the review is excessively carelessly formatted; feels a bit disrespectful to others' time. I will not approve this DYK until you reformat it; I won't do the reformatting for you, I think you're able to do it on your own if you take more time looking at other reviews and reading how that template you used works, but if you really really need help you can ask me specific questions on how to fix it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually Grapesurgeon, you would not be able to approve this nomination anyway as you proposed a hook that was a substantial change from an existing hook (i.e. introduced new hook facts needing verification). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't know that about the DYK process. Will hold back then. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I'm fine with ALT5. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Given the issues raised with the provided QPQ, you will either need to provide a new one or fix the existing one. The current QPQ will not be accepted as it is considered inadequate, and the nomination may be closed for lack of a QPQ if this is not addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Sorry. I was busy with a GA review and thought this would fail since none of the hooks I considered appealed. What do you want me to revise?Tintor2 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Per the issues raised regarding the provided QPQ and the discussion about that review at WT:DYK, I am marking this for closure due to lack of a proper QPQ. I am sorry. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)