Talk:Asparagus (film)

Did you know nomination

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that during its run of screenings at the Whitney Museum, the 1979 film Asparagus was shown rear-projected onto a set that appears in the film itself? Source: Smith, Vicky; Hamlyn, Nicky, eds. (2018). Experimental and Expanded Animation: New Perspectives and Practices. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 206. ISBN 978-3319738727 – via Google Books.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hellcat Ace
  • Comment: QPQ is still in progress.

Created by MatthewHoobin (talk). Self-nominated at 05:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @MatthewHoobin: I found the hook interesting as a theatre enthusiast, and I think the hook has broad enough appeal. The source for the hook is available online and verified, however the pages given for the "Couzin 1997" source are not accessible in the link provided. As of this edit I see QPQ is still pending; please update when complete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you for your feedback! Just letting you know that I've replaced the link provided with the "Couzin 1997" source, so the relevant pages should now be accessible. I'll update you again when QPQ has been completed. —Matthew - (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this change has worsened the accessibility of the source. While an OpenLibrary (Archive.org) book is available to read in full using a free account, the Google Books preview is finicky and limited. I doubt most readers who click on the link will be able to read pages 71–81. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Firefangledfeathers, I didn't know about creating an OpenLibrary account. I'd recommend to go back to that resource, then. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. —Matthew - (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: you seem to be through with your QPQ review, but just making sure. All done? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes! My apologies for forgetting to notify. —Matthew - (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Then this is good to go. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)