Template:Did you know nominations/The Stanford Prison Experiment (film)

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 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Stanford Prison Experiment (film)[edit]

Created by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self nominated at 16:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

  • Length is good (1867 characters); created on September 11 and self-nominated on that day; references good; but 1) readers need to be told why the original production fell through and why it took so many years to get to the stage of production. 2) Hook could be sharper
  • ALT1: "that the The Stanford Prison Experiment about the infamous 1971 Stanford prison experiment is now in production after a standoff of eight years?" ch (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Standoff was of twelve years actually, and I mentioned the reason which refs provided us. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Captain Assassin!:: Right about the twelve years! But the article would be stronger and check out with its sources if it explained (from the dishy 2006 Hollywood Reporter article) that there were not one but two competing projects, a law suit, etc. You have enough good material to say more than "went through many problems like financing." The Plot section is not adequate, though at this stage you could just explain what the "experiment" was, what the good Professor thought he was trying to do, and why Hollywood people were falling over themselves to do films. Then the hook would be stronger and lead more people to the article. In expanding, there is proof reading to do, e.g. "announced first announced," "effect" to "affect" ch (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No CWH, there were two other projects which I've provided and plot's also updated now. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Captain Assassin!: -- thanks for clarifying and expanding the article. It looks good to me now (I also made a few edits and expanded it slightly). I think readers will find it useful. Is ALt2 OK with you or do you want to write an amended hook? ch (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed, since previous reviewer provided the hooks (can't review your own hooks). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry,BlueMoonset, please forgive me, I didn't realize this was the rule. Can Captain Assassin! suggest Hook #3? Can I then approve? ch (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ch, it isn't a problem; reviewers frequently suggest alternate hooks. It's just that someone else needs to approve them. (You hadn't approved your own hook; I just wanted to be sure that the "review again" icon was out there to attract that someone else.) Captain Assassin can certainly suggest an ALT3 on a different topic, which you can then review. However, if it's a minor variant on your ALT2, then it pretty much needs a new reviewer anyway. With any luck, a new reviewer will stop by soon to check out ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll suggest another hook, it passes or fails, it's on your luck CWH. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 01:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's very similar to my first hook, but I think it's the one CWH can review. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 02:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This article is new enough and long enough. This nomination was not going to get anywhere without a citation for the hook facts so I have added one to the article. Going for ALT3 and I have struck the other proposed hooks. No neutrality or copyright problems detected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)