I'm aware freshness on this is a potentially controversial call; I took into account the whole context of its submission and nature of the story (some of which was discussed on the reporter's user talk). To the reporter: don't make a habit of letting things get this late; this is the latest I've ever let an article past, and I don't figure on doing it again for, say, another eight years.
A number of background details I pulled as unverified, and some that I did let through were not altogether in the sources; some were in things linked from the sources, which is a grey area at best (the linked articles should be directly listed), and the list of stuff Stan Lee created I let through as common knowledge (another grey area). Other things I simply didn't see at all in the sources; reminder, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source — any information seen in Wikipedia that you want to use needs to be sourced from something capable of some degree of trust-worthiness. A place to start looking might be sources cited by the Wikipedia article, though in my experience Wikipedia articles commonly cite sources that don't contain the information they're cited for.
Some incidentals: Required elements like {{date}} and {{haveyoursay}} are provided automatically by the article-creation forms scattered about the site (such as at WN:WRITE; I always used those forms myself, as a convenience when starting an article). Note also the use of {{w}}; that's been a major infrastructural improvement (as it's both profoundly helpful to us and gratifyingly painless to use).
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
I'm aware freshness on this is a potentially controversial call; I took into account the whole context of its submission and nature of the story (some of which was discussed on the reporter's user talk). To the reporter: don't make a habit of letting things get this late; this is the latest I've ever let an article past, and I don't figure on doing it again for, say, another eight years.
A number of background details I pulled as unverified, and some that I did let through were not altogether in the sources; some were in things linked from the sources, which is a grey area at best (the linked articles should be directly listed), and the list of stuff Stan Lee created I let through as common knowledge (another grey area). Other things I simply didn't see at all in the sources; reminder, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source — any information seen in Wikipedia that you want to use needs to be sourced from something capable of some degree of trust-worthiness. A place to start looking might be sources cited by the Wikipedia article, though in my experience Wikipedia articles commonly cite sources that don't contain the information they're cited for.
Some incidentals: Required elements like {{date}} and {{haveyoursay}} are provided automatically by the article-creation forms scattered about the site (such as at WN:WRITE; I always used those forms myself, as a convenience when starting an article). Note also the use of {{w}}; that's been a major infrastructural improvement (as it's both profoundly helpful to us and gratifyingly painless to use).
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
