Template:Did you know nominations/List of accolades received by Shiva Baby
- 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 SL93 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
List of accolades received by Shiva Baby
... that Shiva Baby is considered one of the best comedy, horror, queer, Jewish, debut independent films of 2020 and 2021?- ALT1: ... that Shiva Baby was one of the most-awarded films to not receive an Oscar nomination in 2022?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zamia pygmaea
- Comment: I find alt0 to be witty from the implication of over-specificity; I have been cautious with the phrasing of alt1 as it is based on a source (here, oddly, that makes me somewhat cautious as I have not done the math on every Oscar-eligible film myself to 'check'). Article also nominated at FLC, but nothing in either set of instructions precludes this nom, too.
Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC).
- Page: While the list was created months ago, it wasn't moved from drafspace to mainspace until April 3, which is also when the DYK nomination took place, making it new enough. It is also long enough, having much more than just 1,500 characters. There is one image present in the infobox, which originates from a YouTube video using "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". Furthermore, the list is neutral, with everything being properly cited through the use of inline citations. As indicated by the copyvios tool (Here) copyright violation or other form of plagiarism issues are unlikely. Lastly, QPQ has also been done.
- Hook: Both hooks are less than 200 characters, making them short enough. Personally, I find both hooks interesting, although I might be inclined to go with the latter; ALT1. While the first one is also interesting, I'm note sure about the fact that it consists primarily of a string of adjectives used to describe Shiva Baby. The second one is better written, looking, and also more interesting, as it relates to the Oscars. Associating the movie with the Oscars is something that I believe makes the hook more interesting for a general and broad audience.
- Another issue with the first hook is that it apparently fails to meet eligibility criterion 3:B, which states that "each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article". Granted, while Hook #0 is present in the article, it is more of a summary of the table and lacks a source at the end. Conversely, as you yourself state, the second hook is directly cited by a source in the article.
- @PanagiotisZois: I am happy to withdraw alt0 based on this. Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: I think that would be best. I'm sorry, I understand you preferred that hook over the second one. It's just that a hook using 6 continuous adjectives to describe the noun "film" is just too much. Especially when the second hook you wrote is so much more interesting. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @PanagiotisZois: I am happy to withdraw alt0 based on this. Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Another issue with the first hook is that it apparently fails to meet eligibility criterion 3:B, which states that "each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article". Granted, while Hook #0 is present in the article, it is more of a summary of the table and lacks a source at the end. Conversely, as you yourself state, the second hook is directly cited by a source in the article.
The ALT1 hook is not only better than the first, but quite interesting on its own. The source is in Hungarian, and the article does have a note pointing out the part of the text that confirms the hooks claim. Seems ready to go. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)