Template:Did you know nominations/Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Mentoz86 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by PumpkinSky (talk). Self nom at 19:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

  • This topic is too trashy to be non-fiction, so I am afraid more expansion is needed, even if it might pass the 1,500 minimum. Or should I say: it needs a Reception or an Impact section. I found a review from Guardian.co.uk, but it probably needs more such reviews from POV sources, such as NY Times, LA Times, or any other. --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
LA and NYT are refs in the article. And where does it say DYK needs an in impact section? You can't add requirements to suit yourself. And while we're at it, there is no BLP issue, all the subjects are dead and the author self disclosed in a publicly available book that he himself wrote. Any info from that book, which is what this is, is a non issue. He discussed this, including his behavior, on a very popular national TV show. PumpkinSky talk 22:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Under WP:DYKSG#D7, this well-written article may be an incomplete entry of a trash trashy topic... well, yet attractive trash trashy topic. Without such adequate detail, this nomination may be rejected... unless you can counter my argument. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That all depends on your definition of "adequate". And I say you calling this a trash article is trash in itself and a mere case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now you counter my argument.PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I changed "trash" to "trashy topic", and I included "well-written" to justify your skills. Well... existence of the book and the author's alleged life are verified by the primary source and its primary affiliates (i.e. author himself) and news sources verify claims. Nevertheless, since it's a book, fiction or non-fiction, the balance is needed, just as Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention is somehow balanced, although it is still nominated for DYK. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT thing: it is an essay for people to avoid such arguments in deletion discussions. I'm not going to nominate this article for deletion; in fact, I used that argument, which you deemed it as "I don't like it", for needs of expansion, not deletion. Well, this is an attractive topic... at least it is not a biography of the (living) person, althought it meets a scope of WP:WikiProject Biography, living or not. Also, Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling, a non- or less-biographical, non-fiction book, has some balance. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reading WP:DYKSG#D13: Even rules may not guarantee approval, nor may violating them guarantee disapproval. Even unlisted criterion does not disqualify a nomination. "To some extent, DYK approval is a subjective process." In other words, even if this article and the hook might pass the main rules, there is still a room for improvement, unless you have any more counter-arguing. --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • By that logic every DYK should first be a FA. Since you so clearly have in for this article, I'm washing my hands of it and this nom. Bye.PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
      • No, no, no. I don't mean that logic. Just either one extra section or some sentences of criticism (positive counts as criticism, too, am I right?), and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a Reception to balance it (like Lesbian and Gay Youth, or you can blend it in (like Malcolm X biographical book). Then, if I see just at least one to three sentences of criticisms of this book, section or no section, then this nomination might have a chance to pass, but it depends. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Whatever the topic may be is irrelevant, as I've struck out "trash" part. I'm still treating this article as if it needs some more passage that can be written under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV rules. This article cannot be merely about what the book says, what the author did, and how he promoted this book (e.g. he appeared in the CBS program); just one paragraph about criticism is enough for this nomination to pass this, okay? It doesn't have to be FA or GA, as long as imbalance (as I can see there) is resolved. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A critical reception section would still be useful, as right now it reads as mostly a plot summary. Interesting topic indeed, but just a couple of lines of critical reception would improve it greatly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added about 800 characters. Am adding a DYK credit for myself as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Some section headings are needed for this article, like "Background" or "Plot", and "Reception". Either of you can add it; I know you can. --George Ho (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Added "summary" heading, which is best for non-fiction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Hmm... perhaps the original hook is all right and might pass. Nevertheless, there must be more interesting content to choose as ALTs: claims that secret affair of Tracy and Hepburn is a myth could do, or maybe Bob Hope... The "Summary" section is well-written, well-sourced. Still checking the "Reception" section... --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is well-referenced, and well-sourced well-balanced, and well-sourced. All statements are verified. Nevertheless, more ALTs may be needed, as Hepburn and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor are interesting hooks, but others are interesting, as well. ... And I don't know what the nominator prefers. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, "washing hands of it" means no longer self-involved in this discussion and the article. In other words, the nominator has left this article and this nomination to ourselves, am I right? Crisco, are there any other ideas to use as a hook for this article, or that's all? If that's all, then... well, Hepbur is well known world, and the Duke and the Duchess are known to British mainly. However, all subjects are interesting. By the way, I have wikified "being homosexual" as a link to closeted, but that's minor. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    You think you've been helpful enough here, George? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting: some nominations get no attention for weeks, and this one caused a "more than I can read" debate overnight (for me). Thank you for the reception part, Crisco! I think the book title is hooky enough without any name, suggest to let people find names on their own, - I said on other occasions that I like short and quirky:
ALT2: ... that in his 2012 book, Scotty Bowers reveals Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, boy... when I read ALT 2, I can't stop laughing. As said, the article is well-written, well-sourced, and well-balanced. Seriously, the ALT 2 I would prefer... for laughs... Nevertheless, if further copyediting on ALT 2 is needed, either here or after this nomination has passed. Still intriguing... --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess ALT2 is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have added an external link, but it doesn't count as part of minimum requirements. Well, be a judge if you can. --George Ho (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Full_Service:_My_Adventures_in_Hollywood_and_the_Secret_Sex_Lives_of_the_Stars&oldid=1019541812"