Template:Did you know nominations/Manhattan Vigil

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 Carabinieri (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Manhattan Vigil[edit]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by JuneGloom07 (talk). Self nominated at 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

  • Hooks not interesting at all. What is so interesting or unusual about a director returning after a long absence to direct another production? ALT1: What is so interesting or unusual about a show not being intended as the 300th episode? This is trivia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I found it tricky coming up with hooks that had fewer than 200 characters mainly due to the show's name being so long (and I think that it needs to be mentioned). - JuneGloom Talk 02:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Would something from the reception or ratings section be better? Maybe something about one of the guest actors or how Chris Orbach's scenes were cut? If those suggestions are still "TV trivia", then I withdraw this nomination, because that's all I got. - JuneGloom Talk 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Rejecting hooks as "uninteresting" without suggesting any alternative or even giving feedback on what you would consider interesting is not especially helpful, and bear in mind that "interesting" is subjective. Personally, I find the original hook and alt3 alt2 interesting enough, though the emphasis could be changed a little to something like "that 13 Jean de Segonzac directed both the first and the 300th episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell and JuneGloom07: -- "interesting is subjective"? With this reasoning one could easily allow almost any hook. It's not at all difficult to figure that the hook in question isn't interesting to a broad audience. IMO, it's not even that interesting to people who watch the show. A good hook doesn't necessarily have to make the average reader jump up and shout, but it should at least make the reader say, e.g. 'how about that?!' DYK is not the place to be airing trivial points in an article just for the sake of receiving a DYK award. I encourage other reviewers to be especially choosy about what passes for a good hook. IMO too many of the nominations are not interesting, sometimes boring. The backlog is bad enough as too many nominators seem to think almost anything passes for a good hook. I very recently made the same criticism for a few other DYK nom's, and some of the nominators came up with good Alt hooks and the articles were passed.
There are multiple duplicate links in the article. For example Elliot Stabler is linked five times. Mariska Hargitay is linked five times. When I clicked on Highlight duplicate links in the side bar some sections lit up like a Christmas tree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the article that is hook worthy. TV trivia only appeals to a select audience. The article itself isn't especially interesting imo, and again, seems to only appeal to fans of the show, maybe. Clearly the hooks do not appeal to a broad audience. It's one thing to have a TV show appear in an Encyclopedia, but when 'one episode' of that show appears in its very own article it makes you wonder if Wikipedia is slowly turning into a TV guide, but that's another issue. The point is, this is a very 'singular' article, about 'one' tv show. As such, it has very limited appeal. I have not given the nomination the axe, however. If we can come up with a hook that appeals to the average reader, and if the other issue is resolved, at least I will pass it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Can I just point out that Elliot Stabler is not mentioned at all in the article, as he was no longer part of the show at that point. Mariska Hargitay is only linked three times. - JuneGloom Talk 22:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@JuneGloom07: -- I had multiple tabs open one of which was Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and inadvertently checked for dup links one time there as well as Manhattan Vigil. Sorry. There are still a number of dup links in the Manhattan Vigil article, including Tom Sizemore, Donald Cragen, Donald Cragen and others.
I saw something in the lede that would work as a hook and is just interesting enough I suppose.
ALT3 ... that Manhattan Vigil was seen by 6.77 million viewers, making it the most watched program on NBC that night and the third most watched program in its timeslot? -- (154 characters) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've cut down some of the overlinking, and that hook is fine with me. - JuneGloom Talk 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Manhattan Vigil edit history for Sept. 15 claims the article was moved to mainspace on this date, but the article's edit history reveals the article has been in mainspace since Aug. 29. If the article was moved to mainspace on the 15th shouldn't this be the first entry in the article's mainspace edit history? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Article was moved to mainspace on 15 September, despite what Gwillhickers says. It is long enough, neutral and well referenced (no need in plot section). To be honest, I find Gwillhickers' claim that the proposed hooks are uninteresting, or at least not as interesting to a wide audience as other hooks at DYK, very strange – a huge number of entries that pass through DYK are about esoteric topics which appeal only to a small audience even when their most interesting fact is selected and placed on display. I have never seen this TV show (nor do I have any interest in watching it) but I find the original hook sufficiently interesting; ALT1, maybe not; ALT2, maybe; but I think ALT3 is the least interesting suggestion. I'm prepared to give the original hook a tick, except that there appears to be some close paraphrasing which should be fixed. 97198 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If you read more carefully you'll hopefully see that I've only made inquiries about what is apparent in edit history. Notice the question mark at the end of the last sentence in my previous edit, which qualifies my overall comments. Please don't distort statements and questions made by your fellow editors. This tends to be confrontational and disruptive. e.g. There is really nothing "very strange" about citing a hook as uninteresting to a broad audience, and DYK policy clearly says hooks should be interesting to a broad audience, regardless of your take on "esoteric" hooks. Again, DYK backlog is a problem, largely due to individuals who think they can throw anything out there that will pass as an interesting hook. The hook about a director simply returning to direct another show is rather boring. The fact that 6.7 million people watched the show all at once is much more interesting and reflects more accurately on the popularity and quality of the show itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@97198: Thank you for the extra review. I've dealt with the paraphrasing issues. - JuneGloom Talk 23:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, JuneGloom07. All hooks are cited inline; personally I think the original hook is the most interesting but I'll leave it to the prep builder to choose which hook to promote. 97198 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would use the hook that best reflects on the show. The 'returning director' hook speaks only of the director and doesn't say a thing about the show itself. However, I'll also let the 'DYK guys' decide which hook to use. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Manhattan_Vigil&oldid=1144333520"