Talk:Nia DaCosta

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Southerngothics. Peer reviewers: Snapplerocks, Purpleoctopus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Analyzing Cinema, Gender and Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 22 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GreenBruchert8 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GreenBruchert8 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Peer Review on Nia DaCosta by Alice Green

Lead: I find this article concise and factual as it provides insight into DaCosta’s development.

Content: The content provides a detailed description of where DaCosta began in the film industry and things unfolded leading her to become a successful director.

Tone and Balance: The information is delivered in a neutral voice that restrains itself from sounding like the author is promoting the director.

Sources and References: The author has thoroughly researched DaCosta’s development as a director using many reliable sources.

Organization: The article unfolds naturally from DaCosta’s beginnings and builds to her filmography.

Overall: I enjoyed reading this article as it provided the reader with an ability to see DaCosta as someone that came from Brooklyn and Harlem and acquired the education necessary to find herself as a movie crew member and climb to the heights she has achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceFrancesca1998 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review by LAsnin

1)What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

I think they do a good job of keeping the facts straight and not adding emotion. It was also good when they mentioned the subject's mentors. Gives good information.

2)What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

Overall I think the article was strong and pretty similar to a typical Wikipedia page. The only thing I would recommend is working on re-wording certain sentences. Some of the info. (grew up in Brooklyn and Harlem) can be reworded to sound different and still give the same information.

3)What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Again, the article is good however I would just double check to make sure everything is formatted the same way throughout the article.

4)Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

Peer reviewing this definitely made me think about the way I write and how I can do a better job or solely summarizing and not adding emotion to the writing. GreenBruchert8 (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

can this page be edited

every time I update it one of you guys has a reason its wrong. i then go back and correct whats wrong. no citation, add a citation. undue, ok remove undue items. no extra items that are in the body of the article, okay remove all of the extra fluff from the lead that is already in the body. trying to figure out exactly what you want. if every edit i make you revert with a reason why it is wrong, i then proceed to correct what was wrong based on your comments. and then you all revert it anyways. it really begs the question, am i allowed to make edits on wikipedia? whats the point of adding an edit summary with a reason its not correct, if you are then always unhappy when corrections are made. @Sariel Xilo @Trailblazer101 Holydiver82 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

extra information in lead

Is it appropriate to have extra information in the lead paragraph of the article, if it already covered in one of the body paragraphs of the page. for example, the estimated amount of money the movie lost at the box office was removed from the lead, for the reason "16:27, 16 August 2024‎ Sariel Xilo talk contribs‎ 37,189 bytes −144‎ Undid revision 1240659066 by Holydiver82 (talk) This info is in the body of the article & doesn't need to be in the lead" ...so this would be removing a specific detail about the box office performance of the film. however still in the lead of the article is "which became the highest-grossing film directed by a black woman" ...which is also a specific detail about the box office performance of the film also covered in the body of the article about the marvels film. so @Sariel Xilo, why are some details about the specific box office performance of the film included in the lead, which you reverted to include. but you also an hour earlier were removed specific details about the box office performance of the film because it did not need to be in the lead if it was in the body of the article. it seems wildly inconsistent and illogical Holydiver82 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Trailblazer101's original revert explained that including the exact box-office loss amount in the lead was WP:UNDUE weight; getting a WP:BALANCE is key especially with biographies of living persons which are held to a higher standard. "She was the first black woman to direct a Marvel Comics film, The Marvels (2023), which became the highest-grossing film directed by a black woman but also a box-office bomb" is a balanced statement of DaCosta's work on that film as it highlights both the highs & lows without overly emphasizing one over the other; you consistently remove anything that could be construed as positive about this specific film while emphasizing the most negative aspects (ie. you don't edit with a WP:NPOV on this film).

I also reverted your last edit because you went past the three-revert rule with your fourth edit of the lead when you attempted to get your preferred version. Instead of starting a talk discussion after the first or second time you were reverted and working towards consensus, you decided to edit war. This is part of a continuing pattern of WP:NOTHERE behavior which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Holydiver82. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

again, per your edit "16:27, 16 August 2024‎ Sariel Xilo talk contribs‎ 37,189 bytes −144‎ Undid revision 1240659066 by Holydiver82 (talk) This info is in the body of the article & doesn't need to be in the lead" ...the reason you listed for the edit was that the extra information about box office performance was in the body of the article and does not need to be in the lead. but now you are defending including information about box office performance, specifically a super specific detail about black women box office totals in the lead. although all of the information about her being black, and a woman, and all the records that gives her. is all in the body of the article. so again, why the inconsistent lead where sometimes box office performance/records/info is included but other times... "16:27, 16 August 2024‎ Sariel Xilo talk contribs‎ 37,189 bytes −144‎ Undid revision 1240659066 by Holydiver82 (talk) This info is in the body of the article & doesn't need to be in the lead"" Holydiver82 (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want the reader to obtain specific information from the lead? That defeats the purpose of reading the whole article. Dealing with numbers is different than stating an absolute fact of it "became the highest-grossing film directed by a black woman but a box office bomb".The lead only summarizes the body of the article. Also... this isn't the film's page! So yes it would be WP:UNDUE, and quite frankly a WP:POV push on your end. Mike Allen 23:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

so 2 things. First, the fact the marvels was the highest grossing film because of her skin color is very much specific information covered in the body of the article. 2nd, that commentary on black girl records is 100% dealing with numbers. Specifically that fact is a direct fact about the gross revenue of the film and it's box office performance. So to make it extremity clear. This is a wildly hypocritical and inconsistent argument. To the point of I don't understand how you could type that out and think that made any sense to justify anything. Which goes back to, should there be specific facts about the films she's made in the lead, Specifically information about the box office performance of her films. Because the answer should either be yes or no. Not it depends if it makes her look good or bad. Or if that fact is about the color of her skin Holydiver82 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning of how your edits were UNDUEWEIGHT was already explained. The article should only include information that is reliably sourced and then summarize that in the lead for what is most relevant there, which is currently being done. The article is supported by multiple reliable sources for the information presented and is accurately providing all of the facts. The ANI discussion is already in full-swing, so I would be careful about continually pushing your flawed POV and encourage you to once again WP:DROPTHESTICK. The lead notes a notable accomplishment this director achieved which is covered by several sources. There is nothing wrong with that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Really missing the point. You all want me to learn the rules of Wikipedia. Right? Such as undue. So it's bizarre to defend having specific facts that specifically relate to box office performance in the lead. If doing so would not be in line with wiki policy. So it's a fairly simple question. Is it OK/appropriate to include some facts including facts about box office performance in the lead. This should be a yes or no answer and should then in theory apply to the lead regardess if the facts are seen as positive or negative. Because it should have a neutral pov. My experience has been anytime i bring up some really logically inconsistent thing I'm met with threats about some notice board and told to just go away. A more helpful reply would be a yes or no to the question about undue, are specific facts including box office performance appropriate in the lead. Holydiver82 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, your continued POV-pushing is not having the desired effect here, and has brought you to WP:ANI. Multiple editors are asking you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. It would be wise to do that. Move on to something else. Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

if the guides and policies are applied in such an inconsistent way that a simple yes or no question cannot be answered, that seems to be a problem. and if you cannot answer simple yes or no questions about how the rules work, you cannot then complain that I do not understand the rules. Holydiver82 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't about your understanding of the rules. You want to make a specific change to the article, which multiple editors think would not be an improvement. This happens all the time. You should move on, and work on something else. Toughpigs (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Reference style

@Trailblazer101: Just want to flag that switching to LDR makes it harder to edit in the visual and per WP:CITEVAR, the style shouldn't be arbitrarily changed without a discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

While I am aware of VAR compliance, I made the bold change as this is a shorter article and, from my experience (at least on my end), it is easier to manage the content when the refs are not all bundled together with it. I am one who typically uses source editor, and I know visual editor is not the best for citation work. I am happy to revert and discuss this if you feel it is necessary, though. I also did not think this article was being watched as frequently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

My preference would be to revert. I try to limit editing in the source because of dyslexia so being able to use the reference tools in the visual editor makes a huge difference in terms of minimizing error. I find navigating articles with the LDR style incredibly difficult because it forces you to use the source & maybe a split screen just to pull up a ref's info (and even then, you can only make manual changes and not use the popup where you can search for additional template functions). For me at least, it makes articles less accessible and I'm less prone to working on ones with that style. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That is understandable. I typically use a find and replace extension tool in my browser, though I recognize everyone has different circumstances. I'll put the refs back in the body. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have a sense of the technical underpinning for why the LDR format doesn't play nicely with the visual tools but I wish it was more compatible. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)