Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Cruise (film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Cruise (film)

[edit]
(
)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

  • New enough. Long enough (just). It does not feel like fair play to other reviewers that a quick rejection of a 4-article DYK nom is going to be used as QPQs for 4 new articles, especially as TonyTheTiger appears to have used a similar quick rejection of a 6-article DYK nom to count as 6 QPQs. First hook is "so what?" and ALT1 is little better. Is there nothing interesting about this film? Earwig's Copyvio Detector returns 9.1%. Dup detector spot checking shows no significant close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. NPOV. All paras and hook facts cited. However, ALT1 overstates the source, which merely has "An American Graffiti for a new generation? Cruise sounds like it has some shades of it." Edwardx (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Some reviews are trivial and some take a lot of back and forth. The review is done and this one happened to be pretty quick. I don't ever seem to be approached when a review takes 20 comments over the course of 5 weeks that it was too hard of a review and should count for more than one. Note that I did not close the review. I just noted that adjustments would have to be made to the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't see any way of including American Graffiti in a hook that would be both faithful to the source, and "interesting" per the DYK criteria. As it stands I can't see a hook that would meet the "interesting" criterion. As for the QPQ, I am disappointed that you are seeking to take advantage of a loophole, rather than do a proper review. Edwardx (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Striking both hooks as uninteresting (agree with Edwardx); new, interesting hook required, and soon—it's been three weeks since the above review without a response. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't see how ALT2 or ALT3 can reasonably be considered "interesting"; and ALT4 could only be "interesting", if by "new" we mean novel or innovative, yet the article makes no clear assertion of such novelty. Edwardx (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT6: ... that Emily Ratajkowski plays a "nice Jewish girl" who ventures into the other side of town in Cruise? Yoninah (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Yoninah. That hook might just about pass muster, but DYK check is currently showing "1482 characters", below the 1500 limit. Edwardx (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What would be more interesting to a reader a film that is similar to another classic film or a film about a "nice Jewish girl"? Why are you so insistant on a hook that no one will want to look at.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Edwardx: I added another ref. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The so-called comparison to American Graffiti is such a stretch that to use it is inappropriate. Indeed, the Opinion section of the article seems to me to be misnamed or out of place—is this typical of movie articles? Shouldn't the "period youth-culture drama" description be elsewhere in the article? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You are passing judgement rather than summarizing. Remember WP is a tertiary resource with a duty summarize secondary sources. We are not in a position to determine which reliable sources make "so-called" "stretch" comparisons and which one make "real" comparisons. WP is not an encyclopedia of which RS comparisons BlueMoonset thinks are stretch and which are valid. We are just suppose to summarize what is said in the article. Then DYK is suppose to determine which summaried facts are most likely to draw viewers. What you are doing is passing judgement on RS rather than summarizing them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As I have already noted above, the source has, "An American Graffiti for a new generation? Cruise sounds like it has some shades of it." ALT5 misrepresents that source. I agree with BlueMoonset. Edwardx (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger, I am not passing judgment on the source, though I am reading it with a critical eye as to fact and supposition, which every editor reading a source should do. If I'm passing judgment on anything, it comes down to your judgment as to what is appropriate to include from the source and how it is characterized in the article and hook. Edwardx and I are agreed: ALT5 misrepresents the source, and I've struck the hook. Interesting hooks are one thing, but they must accurately represent the source. (I've also struck ALT2 and ALT3 per Edwardx, who I feel is correct in his assessment; I'm not sure about ALT4, so I've left it as is.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry folks, I have spent too much time on the nom already, and am now dropping it from my watchlist. I will leave it to someone else to decide what to do with it. Edwardx (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, the source makes some sort of comparison of Cruise to American Graffiti. You may consider the comparison to be a "stretch", but that is your judgement. The hook just says that there is a source that makes a comparison. Stop being an arse. Whether or not you agree as people familiar with cinema that the comparison is a stretch or not, there is a comparison made and that is all the hook says. You have no basis to say that there is not some sort of comparison in the source because there is one and that is all ALT5 says. You may not like the comparison and may consider it a stretch, but it is clearly present in the source as represented by ALT5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Since TonyTheTiger refuses to accept that ALT5 is an unacceptable hook for DYK in the view of two separate reviewers and insists on it being the hook, I'm going to have to close this as unsuccessful. I'm sorry it came to this; I tried my best, as did Edwardx and for that matter Yoninah, who proposed ALT6. If you change your mind about using a non-American Graffiti hook, Tony, you can ping me; otherwise this nomination has closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, We all know you are one of the leaders of DYK, but the way you are throwing your weight around is senseless. You are putting all kinds of words in my mouth and issuing a very premature ultimatum. In many cases like this, (where the nomination is only a month old) the more standard thing to do is to open the nomination to suggestions, as you are well aware. It is unusual for a nomination to be closed in this manner within a month of the creation of the article and that you are merely throwing your weight around to insist on ALT6. December 4 nominations are still currently under discussion. The only thing you seem to be "trying your best" to do is throw your weight around. You have neither stated clearly why you do not believe that a comparison is made to American Graffiti (presumably because you realize one is made) nor stated why you insist that I accept ALT6 on a one-month old nom. This article is not long enough in the tooth that we should view closing the discussion as an appropriate reaction to disagreement about the hook. Many nominations remain open much longer than a month these days. I just massaged the article content yesterday and it is not even clear if the latest changes are stable. Part of the objection to the hook in my mind was previous phrasings of the article content, which even led to the issue being deleted for a brief period of time. I hope that the current article content is agreeable as a summary of the source. I am not even sure if you have looked at the most recent version of the content in stating your objection to ALT5. Given that some of the objections were made when the content had been removed from the article, making an ultimatum of the sort that you are is not appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tony, you are welcome to appeal my decision to WT:DYK. However, it is based not only on the latest article wording, but on the source that wording is based on, as was Edwardx's decision. As you know, we both came to the same conclusion: an American Graffiti-based hook that uses that source article is not acceptable. Your replies seem based on WP:IDHT—you don't want to be balked in your desire to use that comparison. So, I'll repeat one last time: you can use ALT6, you can propose ALT7 or 8 or 12, but not a hook based on American Graffiti. This is far from the first time reviewers have had issue with using information from a source based on what the source actually says, and it won't be the last. Finally, one month is plenty of time for a DYK review; I closed a couple of reviews the other day that were of the same vintage or shorter. There's no reason to spend more time on this one unless you want to propose new hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In regards to alternatives, I am about to go to sleep and the article is currently thin. Give me 48 hours to dig before I figure out which way I lean.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In all honesty, I think there is some billboard somewhere with instructions to find the least interesting hook for all nominations by me, but if that (ALT6) is all we can go with, then so be it. I can't find anything else.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've just rechecked ALT6, and it isn't really accurate. The girl is from Long Island, while the guy is from "the wrong side of the tracks" but probably not "the other side of town": he could be from Queens or Brooklyn or some other part of New York City, while "Long Island" is almost certainly outside NYC (even if, technically, Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island). They've been quite vague about geography here; it could be in the city or on the island (though there is location filming in the city proper, according to some more recent sources). The various sources are clearly working from the same press release, since she is said to be "a nice Jewish girl from Long Island who goes to Gio's neighborhood for some illicit thrills on the wrong side of the tracks" in both the Hollywood Reporter and Deadline sources. Yoninah, do you think you could make another ALT that stays within the known parameters, or perhaps take a different tack altogether? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • OK. I re-edited the plot summary, and suggest:
  • ALT7: ... that Emily Ratajkowski plays a "nice Jewish girl" looking for action in Cruise? Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT7 reflects the article, which in turn reflects the cited sources. The article currently has 1595 prose characters according to DYKcheck, enough to qualify. The rest of the review per Edwardx; the QPQ does technically qualify, but I strongly believe that all ten cannot validly be used, since the reviewer should have allowed at least one of the nominated articles to be approved as the original—the "X" was not the appropriate icon to use when one of the multiset was perfectly fine. Since this is 1 of 4, I'll let it pass, but 4 of 4 should not be used because of this significant flaw in the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cruise_(film)&oldid=707054969"