- The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Brad Zellar
edit- ... that the Coen brothers film A Serious Man, nominated for Academy Award for Best Picture in 2009, partly based the visuals on a book by Brad Zellar?
- Alt1... that the Coen brothers film A Serious Man, nominated for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Picture, used a book by Brad Zellar for inspiration?
- Reviewed: George Juskalian
Created/expanded by Mkdw (talk). Self nominated at 05:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC).
Although this article is in a good shape, created in the right timeframe and within policy, images' fair use rationales solid, and its hook appropriately interesting, there is some close paraphrasing concern within the hook. "Partly based" can be found ad verbatim in the news article (ref 2). I'm not too sure either on possible close paraphrasing in reference 12. Also; there's a {{cn}} on the article which I would love to see replaced by an actual reference.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 09:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the verbatim is "based partly" ;). Might be a bit of a stretch to call it plagarism but it is similar albeit the turn of phrase is very common in that context. I've offered an alt. I'm not really an expert on baseball so I quoted the lines of the interviewer in describing his baseball collection. Quotes are technically not considered paraphrasing. I found a somewhat poor source for the cn. I'm hoping that it falls under the category of uncontroverdial information where primary sources can be used. Technically a secondary source, it's obvious he has a close connection to the source and would not be considered "independent". I think the awards are small and not the basis of any credible assertion of notability. It's largely possible he won the awards but they're small enough that they don't publish the results online nor would anyone write about them. As per policy awards or content in an article don't need to be notable, only the primary subject. I'm hoping source covers verifiable. Mkdwtalk 09:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your new reference (it's good enough for DYK, by the way) is a bare URL. Please turn that into a proper {{cite web}}, and I guess it's ready.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 18:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Are there any questions or concerns that I can address of yours that is keeping you away from a tick? I think the article is fairly straight forward and agreed to your suggested Alt. Source is good and article reasonably written in my opinion unless there are parts of it that concern you? Mkdwtalk 08:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
-
- I'll do a second review. Rules wise, everything looks good, except ... those images. The fair-use rationales are for the film article and the album article - to use them here a separate f.a.r. would have to be written for this article. (see item 10 - Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria)
- Also, from a style standpoint, I'd rewrite the lead a little - the mentions of TIME and the award seem a bit puffy, maybe just a description of his work without name drops? (This isn't a DYK req., just a suggestion). The Interior (Talk) 03:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Please let me know if the rationale is appropriate (I am admittedly weak in that area). I removed the TIME reference and will think about how I can describe the award differently, though it is a fairly big achievement. Obviously I don't want to seem like I'm bartering simply for the DYK at the expensive of the article. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 04:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Mkdw, The Interior asked me to drop by. The article's fair use images, although they now have an appropriate fair use rationale, still do not pass the non-free content criteria, particularly point 8. We generally try to keep the number of fair-use images at a minimum, enforcing fairly strict requirements for their use. These images are not required for, nor would the removal of them be detrimental to, a reader's understanding of the article; as such, it is doubtful that they approach criterion 8 and should be removed. The poster will not show any visuals which were inspired by the novel, particularly not without any comparison; if people want to see the poster, they can click through to the article on the film. For the album cover, the statement is not one which gives context significance to any fair-use images. I need not see the album cover to think "oh, this person is on the album cover". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not married to the images and easily removed consider the non-free argument. Mkdwtalk 00:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright. The Interior can wrap this up then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Crisco. I've added a sentence to the lead to give a better description of his works - the article does a good job of covering his career, but I was still a little unclear on what sort of writer he is.
as good to go. (I'm wondering why Crisco's namedrops haven't given me Echo notifications, I really liked that function ...)The Interior (Talk) 14:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Crisco. I've added a sentence to the lead to give a better description of his works - the article does a good job of covering his career, but I was still a little unclear on what sort of writer he is.
- Not married to the images and easily removed consider the non-free argument. Mkdwtalk 00:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
