Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/1st Canadian Comedy Awards

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 — Maile (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

1st Canadian Comedy Awards, Canadian Comedy Awards, List of Canadian comedians, Peameal bacon, Poutine, Made in Canada

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
Extended content
French fries and cheese curds with gravy
Serving of poutine
  • ... that poutine (pictured) and back bacon on a bun were served while The Beaver was awarded to Made in Canada, clowns, and comedians at the inaugural Canadian Comedy Awards? Hook fact appears in 1st Canadian Comedy Awards. Sources: "the premier Canadian Comedy Awards [...] guests munched on Canadian fare like back bacon on a bun and poutine [...] Rick Mercer was chosen best male performer in a TV comedy for Made in Canada [...] Other awards went to: [...] Mike Kennard and John Turner (a.k.a. Mump and Smoot, although they appeared sans clown face last night); best actor[s]in a comedic play [...] Canada's comic elite were finally able to take home something more tangible than simply the memory of chuckles and guffaws." The Globe and Mail and "Beaver (yup, that's what the award is called)" The Globe and Mail

Created/expanded by Reidgreg (talk). Self-nominated at 23:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC).

Note that not all of the articles are ready for DYK reviews:

All articles ready for DYK review. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Reidgreg: do you have an image to go with this? Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Nothing specific. I suppose a picture would balance-out the length of the hook, so good idea! The picture of the trophy at the CCA article is fair use, as is the title card for Made in Canada, so they don't qualify. Commons has plenty of pictures of poutine. (File:Poutine.JPG might be good and appears in the article, though I'm not the best person to judge.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Starting review of Peameal bacon, as that's one that hasn't been to GA already --valereee (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Peameal bacon GTG: was expanded from 762 characters to 5000+ between Jun 7 and 10, nominated Jun 7, so plenty long and 5x expansion done and nominated in time. I did not find the hook info (that it was served at the first awards) in the article, but I did find that at the awards article, so I’ve added it in +source. There was a minor instance of too-close paraphrasing in the lead, which I fixed. Article is sufficiently sourced, and references appear to be in good shape. The point within the hook that references this article is interesting. --valereee (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Starting review of Poutine, which is another food article so happy to pitch in there, too. --valereee (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Poutine GTG: is long enough and was reviewed for GA June 7, so new enough. There are sufficient citations, at least one per paragraph, and they appear to be in good shape. Once again I did not find the hook point in the article, but again added it. Note to Reidgreg: I think you’re going to need to put the hook point with source into each of the other articles in order for them to be bolded rather than simply linked. Fixed an instance of too-close paraphrasing. Point within the hook that references this article is interesting. Article is stable. Image of Poutine is properly licensed and used in article. --valereee (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: I added a picture from poutine to the nomination, if you wouldn't mind checking it as well. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Could I have a third opinion on the bolded note above? Rule H5 requires the hook fact to be cited in the [main] article, but it isn't clear if the hook fact must be present in every bolded article of a multiple-article hook. I don't mind the addition of the hook fact to the above articles (poutine, peameal bacon), but it might seem trivial or out of place in the other secondary articles (Made in Canada, List of Canadian comedians, Canadian Comedy Awards). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Reidgreg, I'm not interpreting it to mean all the articles have to be connected somehow with all the other articles, just that the point in the hook (that poutine was served at this awards dinner, for instance) would need to be mentioned in both articles, and so on. Poutine doesn't need to go into any of the other articles. It just needs to be in the poutine article that they were served at the awards, and in the awards article that poutine was served. Winning a Beaver would need to be mentioned in the Made in Canada article, and the fact Made in Canada won a Beaver in the awards article. But the Made in Canada article doesn't need to mention poutine, and vice versa. But maybe I'm wildly off base here! --valereee (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added the image check to the poutine review --valereee (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, good!  CCA has "The Beaver" and comedians, the List refers to CCA, you've fixed the food articles, and MIC refers to this article and CCAs.  This main article is the only one with the complete hook fact. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: the hook fact only needs to be mentioned and sourced in one of the articles. @Reidgreg: great picture! Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, even if both articles are bolded? What's the difference in requirements between a bolded article and a linked article, just that they've both been through review? They don't need to be connected to one another via a hook that is sourced in each? It seems like when someone goes to a bolded article and doesn't see anything that connects it to the hook, they'd wonder why. ETA: er, not arguing, just trying to get my own understanding straight. :) --valereee (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: the hook fact has to appear in only one bolded article in the hook, even if there are 30 bolded articles! I don't understand your question about linked articles; they are not subject to DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reidgreg:@Valereee: There is too much linking going on in the hook. The "clowns" link looks like a link to Clown, not to the award winner. I suggest deleting that. Linking to "comedians" as List of Canadian comedians is also confusing; was the award given to all the comedians in the list? I would suggest doing a different hook for List of Canadian comedians and writing the hook this way:
  • ALT1: ... that poutine (pictured) and back bacon on a bun were served while The Beaver was awarded to Made in Canada at the inaugural Canadian Comedy Awards? Sources per ALT0 Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: My idea was for "Made in Canada, clowns and comedians" to read without the comma, as if "Made in Canada" was a compound modifier applied to "clowns and comedians", like another way of saying Canadian clowns and Canadian comedians. (About 20 people on that list received awards at the 1st CCAs; less than 5% of the list. Mump and Smoot are regarded as the most-famous Canadian clown duo, so Canadian clowns → Mump and Smoot.) I'm open to ALT1 but would like to see how the rest of the reviews go. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reidgreg: OK, but that compound modifier thing isn't clear at all. I'll try to review the rest of the hooks if someone doesn't beat me to it. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I may help later today or tomorrow, - please clarify in the list of 6 above what's already under review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    I checked the completed reviews; so far no editor has specifically stated an intention to review any of the last four. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    for Made in Canada, substantial GA on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    for Canadian Comedy Awards, substantial expansion on good sources, no copyvio obvious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Review of List of Canadian comedians: 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. However, the material which constitutes the lead is unorganized and jumps from topic to topic. I suggest writing a more general lead (see hidden note in edit window) and then breaking the rest up into subsections. After "Types of humour", though, I was unable to find a logical sequence; it all seems like a mish-mash.
  • As mentioned above, I don't think this page should be included in the multi-hook nomination, and neither should the non-bolded "clowns" directing to Mump and Smoot. Please suggest a different hook for this article. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Review of 1st Canadian Comedy Awards: 5x expansion verified, new enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. All of the citations for the hook are found in this article, and hook refs are verified and cited inline. Image is freely licensed. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: I wonder about the article name, why "1st", not "First"? I also suggest you write a short lead and have a new section below. The names of collagues of someone who won in two categories seems no lead material. - General: I'd collapse the navbox in all articles, at least until there's more blue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The ordinal (1st) in the title seems to be the convention with these sorts of articles (e.g. 1st Academy Awards). It probably makes it easier for listing/navigation, and to keep the title from becoming unwieldy. When I ran an intitle search with "first" I mostly found things like First Novelist Award which is for an artist's debut work (i.e. first novels written by authors, not the first year the award was given). Some list by the year, but this can become ambiguous and confusing (between the eligibility year, the year the award was given, if the ceremony ever skipped a year for some reason, or if the eligibility period does not coincide with a calendar year).
    I noted the colleagues who shared that award because it wasn't written out anywhere else in prose. The lead looks a little long compared to the prose in some sections, but it's also summarizing a lot of tables. (I feel like it would get a bit redundant if all the information in tables was also written out in prose.)
    I collapsed the nav template. (I have drafts for ceremonies 2–19 which I was going to move to mainspace when this passed, but I recently gained access to the ProQuest database and want to flesh them out with additional sources first.) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
For List of Canadian comedians, I agree with Yoninah's edits, it was too long for a lead and works much better with sections. Being very general, it was intended to show how the realities of the country (culture, audiences, climate, industry) shape its comedians, and what distinguishes Canadian comedians from those of other countries. I'll try to write a lead and organize it in that vein. I'm not sure anything stands out as hook-worthy. I have a couple sources which say something along the lines of "Canada produces more [notable] comedians per capita than any other country in the world", which I feel is broadly interesting, but they aren't high-quality sources for census-type information like that, and I didn't include it in the article as I felt it was likely to be challenged. (Census information I did find grouped comedians with actors, so I couldn't resolve it as a distinct profession.) If we can't think of a good hook, I'm fine with dropping it, but please keep the QPQ credit for the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reidgreg: no problem. I'm sure we can come up with a good hook after you fix up the article. We could leave this template open until that's resolved.
  • ALT1 is simply a shorter version of ALT0, and since all five articles have been checked and verified, ALT1 is good to go. I have struck List of Canadian comedians from the DYK credit lines. Yoninah (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • ALT2B: ... that Canada's comedians, along with its singers and musicians, are considered to be the country's cultural representatives?" Source: "working-class individuals [...] idea of Canada's cultural best is more likely to include the Canadian comedians who have frequented American television shows such as Saturday Night Live (Dan Akroyd, Mike Myers) or rock groups such as Rush [...] or more recently internationally famous performers such as Shania Twain or Celine Dion" Anthropologica (source offline). It's not in the article yet, but does that sound hook-worthy? Oh, the "more likely" part in the source is comparing what is broadly popular to what is traditionally chosen from the fine arts by the elite. Feel free to suggest changes. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the hook is good. Are you going to create a lead paragraph too? I'm not very familiar with list articles but you should probably summarize the major points there. I'll take a look at this once this is done. Overall, this is ripe for promotion. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Good job on the expansion, Reidgreg! The presentation looks much better now and the lead reads well. I suggest writing the hook this way:
Two comedians dressed as Mounties apprehend the host of a TV show
Wayne and Shuster with Ed Sullivan
  • ALT2c: ... that Canadians consider their comedians (Wayne and Shuster pictured), along with their singers and musicians, to be the country's cultural representatives?
  • Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. Rest of my review above. ALT2c good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I like ALT2c. Fixed the TOC and section headers, and added a bunch of images, all marked with free licenses. I tried to use performance images, and then added a few others where there were gaps. I tried to balance the columns and images as best I could, hopefully it doesn't look too bad at different screen widths. I might go back to crop a photo so it'll display better, but I'm pretty happy with it. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Reidgreg: nice job on the images. Confirming that all images are freely licensed. What do you think about adding the Wayne and Schuster image to this nomination? From a design point of view, the images do look a bit too big. Are they default 200px? Yoninah (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I set the long skinny picture of Katherine Ryan to 150px. The others are all 'thumb's, which I believe sets the width according to the user preferences and browser platform. The Wayne & Shuster picture certainly fits the hook, and I was really pleased to find it. Have added it to ALT2c, above. I used an ampersand to keep the caption short; are the caption and the (pictured) note sufficient? Also cropped the picture of Candy Palmater in the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The image is freely licensed. I edited the caption and "(pictured)" part. ALT2c good to go with image. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Returned from prep. Several alts have been proposed at WT:DYK#Prep 3. Let's get the hook into shape and approved before promotion. It would be great to run this with the Wayne and Shuster image, but the hook has to connect to it. Pinging @Reidgreg:. Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    Going to list the hooks here:
    • ALT0: ... that many working-class Canadians consider their comedians, along with their singers and musicians, to be the country's cultural representatives?
      • ... that Canadians popularly consider their cultural best to include comedians?
    • ALT1: ... that Canadian comedians use individual expression to reinforce collective values?
    • ALT2: ... that to be social acceptable, some Canadian comedians link comedic discontent to group survival?
    • ALT3: ... that in Canada, comedians face taboos regarding immodesty, impoliteness, and social criticism?
    • ALT4: ... that the dangers of Canada's vast and sparsely populated climate have given rise to dark and fatalistic humour on the part of Canadian comedians?
    I have a quote from a comedy historian that "[Canadian] comedians have long been a source of national pride" but I was trying to keep the article short and generalized and was avoiding quotes. There were also quotes that "Canada produces more notable comedians per capita than any other country" but I would not consider the sources reliable for that kind of data and was unable to find census data to back it up. (Although comparing with the lists for other countries, Canada certainly has more Wikipedia articles on comedians per capita.)
    I feel the Wayne & Shuster picture worked when the hook was about Canada's cultural representatives to the world. I'm not so sure about the other hooks. I suppose if we expanded something like The Canadian Conspiracy and did a hook about Canadian comedians taking over the US, the picture could fit that. Or we could just save the picture for the Wayne & Shuster articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reidgreg: it does seem to me that you wrote this article very sketchily; perhaps you were just busy with all the other articles you were nominating. If you were to expand any of the sections with examples, rather than generalities, I think you could come up with better hooks. Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • My feeling was that the prose should be just enough to introduce the list, and what distinguishes Canadian comedians from other comedians. I didn't want to go down the path of examples – although I could see doing that in a history section after writing some missing articles for the early history. I'm not really interested in further expanding the article at this time.
    • I did some more reading about cultural representatives and representative culture and found that there are differing, and sometimes conflicting, definitions. In line with my conception is the following definition: The vicarious actions undertaken by individual, exceptional persons either for, on behalf of, or acting as proxy for the other members of the group in question or society (or even the whole human race).UC Press Canadians identify with their sense of humour but cannot always express it; comedians are the exceptional individuals with artistic talent who can express the cultural ideas and ideals of humour, and represent this aspect of the culture – becoming the group's cultural representatives, eh? Does that make sense? The article touches on this in a few places and the lead summarizes it. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Yoninah: are any of the hooks interesting and passable enough? If not, is there something specific that should be done to move this forward? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

( A new review is needed to check the new hooks. @Yoninah: Would it be okay for you to please take another look at the ones that Reidgreg suggested? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I still like ALT4 out of all of them. The first two alts are a little scholarly for a hook. ALT3 is good, but does not have an inline cite. So I'll go ahead and approve ALT4, which is an offline source but cited inline. Rest of review above. ALT4 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I can't approve it because I wrote it :). Narutolovehinata5 can you approve ALT4? Or Reidgreg, do you prefer ALT3, in which case you'll need an inline cite there. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm good with ALT4. I'd borrowed the book used as the main source, and find that I didn't take good enough notes to improve the citation for ALT3. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Reidgreg: @Yoninah: @Narutolovehinata5: I'm going to suggest a slight revision to ALT4, as the article doesn't say that Canada's climate did give rise to dark and fatalistic humour, it says that kind of humour is "generally attributed" to the climate of the vast and often sparsely populated country. So, what about:
ALT4a ... that the dark and fatalistic humour of Canadian comedians has been attributed to the dangers of Canada's climate and geography?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'm fine with that. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We need someone to approve this, and someone to promote it, ASAP. @RebeccaGreen: all you did was turn the hook around; you can approve it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, if that's the case, I'm happy to approve ALT4a, AGF for the offline source. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
  • Note to promoter: There are 2 separate hooks on this page, ALT1 which is scheduled for a special occasion appearance on July 1, and ALT2c. Please leave this template open after promoting one so the other will still be available for promotion. Or, promote them at the same time! Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I have promoted ALT1 without the image to Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/1st_Canadian_Comedy_Awards&oldid=1019422950"