Template:Did you know nominations/Hail, Caesar!

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 G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Hail, Caesar![edit]

(
)
  • ... that the upcoming film Hail, Caesar! is set in 1950s Hollywood film industry, whose idea was brought by Coen brothers in 2004?
  • ALT1:... that the in-production film Hail, Caesar!, set in the 1950s, was originally set to take place in the 1920s?
  • QPQ: Jill Valentine
  • Comment: If ALT1 is going to be accepted, then please wait until film goes into production on November 10.

5x expanded by Captain Assassin! (talk), Sock (talk). Nominated by Captain Assassin! (talk) at 02:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

  • I've struck ALT0 because I neither understand what it's trying say, nor can figure out how to fix it. EEng (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone should review the nom now but it should be published after November 10, because filming will begin on that day. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@EEng: Just yesterday an announcement made by an actor that it'd begin filming in January, which was first officially set for November 10. Now what's the plan for it, should we wait until November 10 and January, or should we remove the nomination and create it again when we revert back the article? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if you've noticed but the article has been redirected to Coen Brothers, because films aren't considered notable until principal photography has begun, in large part because these repeated delays often mean it's not going to get made at all. I'm not sure what to advise you at this point, sorry. EEng (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. And sorry, too, that several of your noms seem to have been on the receiving end of my DYK-grumpiness of the last day or two.
So, should we delete the nomination at all or wait until January? It's just 2 months to hold up the review. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'd suggest just letting this one sit here until you (hopefully) are able to recreate the article, but I predict someone will come along and insist it be closed instead. EEng (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, a reviewer is needed here. Film's shoot is confirmed to start on November 10. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This looks like a case of an article being built in mainspace from June 25, 2014 to November 1, 2014, then being blanked and made into a redirect on November 1, then being reinstated on November 7. The page was 2,893 characters before the redirect, and 3,772 characters as of the latest edit on December 16. This is going against several DYK rules: (1) The page was actually created on June 25, so it doesn’t qualify per DYK’s 7-day rule; and (2) according to Rule A5, the new copy that you added after the redirect must be 5x longer than the original, which it isn’t. I suggest that in the future you either keep these films-that-haven’t-yet-begun-filming in User Draft, or wait until you pass GA to nominate them. Yoninah (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I'm curious as to why this nomination doesn't qualify as a 5x expansion. When Captain Assassin! nominated it on October 31, it had 2931 prose characters and counted as a 5x expansion according to DYKcheck (expansion had started the day before, on October 30). It was then redirected on November 1 and restored again on November 7, a week after nomination, this time with 2881 prose characters and the 5x expansion still started on October 30 (and October 30 is still the expansion date today even with the article up to 3820 prose characters). Going with the November 7 restoration date, it's only eight days to get the 5x expansion. I'd be inclined to make an exception in this case because it qualified at the time of nomination and a week after that when restored, but in general agree with your final assessment: film articles started in mainspace in violation of WP:NFF that are subsequently redirected are unlikely to qualify for DYK if there was any meat to them, and that becomes extremely unlikely with multiple changes between article and redirect. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Mea culpa. This page has gone through so many redirects and restorations, even after Captain Assassin's nomination, that it's hard for me to keep track of what happened. I'm not sure how I got my original figures above, but now that I've investigated the history more thoroughly, I agree that the text as of the October 31 nomination was a 5x expansion over the revision as of 15:36, 30 October 2014. Only the first paragraph was retained and does not count in my calculation of the 5x expansion. New enough, long enough, well sourced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT1 hook refs verified and cited inline. I tweaked the grammar in the hook. All that's needed now is a QPQ. Yoninah (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Captain Assassin!: Are you still working on this? A QPQ review is required to push this on. Fuebaey (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm back. QPQ is given now, I co-reviewed the nom. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • QPQ done. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, as I pointed out at the time, the review was completely inadequate: newness (and GAness) plus QPQ mentioned, and a hook issue. Lots of other checks were not covered: close paraphrasing, neutrality, overall article sourcing, and so on. It's why Cwmhiraeth had to do a new review from scratch. I'm going to be taking a hard line on this one, especially after the unfortunate claim earlier by Captain Assassin! that Template:Did you know nominations/Despicable Me 2 wasn't a self-nomination, in hoping to avoid a QPQ there. Full QPQs will need to be provided for this nomination and that one. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like I'm batting a thousand with this nomination :( Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Yoninah, I didn't know, I saw more than once, users mentioned/used co-reviewed noms as the QPQs. By the way a full QPQ is given now. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Second QPQ looks OK. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want to hold this up any more if you guys are already set on a hook, but some version of the original is certainly more interesting to me. How about
    ALT2: ... that the upcoming Coen brothers film Hail, Caesar! is set in the 1950s Hollywood film industry?
    We're not a marketing department, but I at least would want to know that this is a Coen brothers production and when it's set. — LlywelynII 13:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Not that I want to prolong this either but could you check over the second QPQ and determine if it's adequate? No offence meant towards Yoninah, but since they raised their objection I thought I'd ask. Any thoughts on ALT2? Fuebaey (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuebaey, I'm not impressed by that second QPQ, which seems to have missed the "within policy" checks that include neutrality and close paraphrasing/copyvio (it depends on what "everything's good" covered, and based on the other reviews I've seen I'm not at all confident that it covered nearly enough). However, I'll let you decide whether you think it should be allowed to slide this time. As for ALT2, it doesn't particularly excite me, but I agree that the Coen brothers is a draw. Maybe add the 1920s from ALT1 to it for added interest? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not usually finicky over minor details unless there's an egregious mess up, but given that the nominator is a frequent contributor here at DYK, perhaps they should provide a QPQ that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been covered. On the plus side, how about:
ALT3: ... that the upcoming Coen brothers film Hail, Caesar!, set in the 1950s Hollywood film industry, was originally set to take place in the 1920s? Fuebaey (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Both QPQs were co-reviewed but I think both can cover the single QPQ need here. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Captain Assassin!, they don't. In both cases the other reviewer had to review from scratch. You will need, as Fuebaey says, to provide a QPQ that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been covered for this nomination, and it needs to be all your own work. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it. I'll review another nomination and then I'll be back. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: A complete QPQ is given now. Will you please strike all other hooks which are not accepted? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Captain Assassin!, I'm afraid this new review, recently promoted to GA status, long enough and inline cited. QPQ is completed by nominator, has the same issues as your previous ones. With the exception of the sourcing, you completely ignore the "within policy" criteria: is neutral, cites sources with inline citations, is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Neutrality and the last three are critical, yet you never address them in your reviews. You need to do so. We've had too many articles that fail these criteria to not check them, even some GAs. I look forward to you completing the review; I'm noting what remains to be done there so it doesn't get promoted before you can. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • QPQ has been successfully expanded. Hooks after ALT1 still need to be reviewed; suggesting a rewritten version of ALT3:
I was going to approve and clear this but realised that there wasn't an inline cite to support the hook. There are cites supporting each individual fact, but none to link the two (film premises can evolve into completely different movies even with the same title and authors). I added this ref, so someone else needs to recheck. Fuebaey (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is (was) new enough and is also long enough. Going for ALT3a which has an inline citation, or ALT2 would also be acceptable. The article is neutral and I did not detect any close paraphrasing or other copyright issues. QPQ seems to have been satisfactorily completed so this is ready to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Hail,_Caesar!&oldid=944833862"