Template:Did you know nominations/Call Me by Your Name (film)

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Call Me by Your Name (film)

(

)

... that Luca Guadagnino, who directed the romantic drama film Call Me by Your Name, was first hired as a location consultant for the film? ("...but Guadagnino replaced him in the director’s chair after originally boarding the film as a location consultant.")
- ALT1:... that Luca Guadagnino, who directed the R-rated romantic drama film Call Me by Your Name, described it as a "film for families"? (Rating: R) ("...Guadagnino described the work as a “film for families"...)
- ALT2:... that a teaser for the romantic drama film Call Me by Your Name became an internet meme on Twitter? ([1])

Note: The nominator has less than 5 DYK credits, so no QPQ needed.

5x expanded by Damian Vo (talk). Self-nominated at 14:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC).

Sadly (and it's a great shame, because I really like that first hook) this article is not eligible for DYK. A week before its nomination it stood at 16,329 bytes, the necessary five-fold expansion would have taken it to at least 81.645 - meaning that even with the work done after the nomination, it is still around 28,000 bytes short of the required expansion. Sorry. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops I hadn't notice that. Because of my busy schedule, right now I can't seem to expand the article that far. ~~So I'd like to withdraw this nomination,~~ and I really hope it will work out next time. Thank you so much for your review. Damian Vo (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yunshui: You cannot judge an expansion based on the total byte count in the history; you must count characters, excluding headers, lists, boxes, etc., per WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria 1. New. Looking at this edit on October 16 before Damian Vo's expansion began, the character count was 4715. As of now, the character count is 18,151, just under a 4x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Damian Vo, there is no need to withdraw this nomination, since it may well be possible for you to expand this article further and have it be eligible for DYK—people not infrequently come up slightly short in the expansion department in a DYK review and are able to add more to the article so it qualifies. With a base of 4,715, a 5x expansion would require 23,575 prose characters, or another 5,424 prose characters. Would adding that much more material be feasible, say, within the next week or so? If you can, the nomination can continue. Please let us know how you'd like to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been over a week, and fortunately I have achieved the required character count (23,741). Damian Vo (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Full review needed now that article meets the 5x expansion requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Damian Vo While this is new enough and long enough, I'm finding a concerning amount of close paraphrasing/copied phrases - I already fixed one, but Earwig's detector found several other instances of unquoted copied text or close paraphrasing. I feel like the wording in these bits is not so generic that it would be the only possible way to state these facts.

"Most of the film’s locations are in the immediate environs of Crema" - identical in both
"Before making the film, he was able to understand Italian and speak fluently in French, while having six years of piano experience and a year of guitar" in the article vs "While Chalamet is fluent in French and was able to understand Italian somewhat"..."the actor had six years of piano experience and a year of guitar before making the film" from the source
"rehearsed their scenes every night before shooting" - identical in both but probably generic enough to be ok
"Guadagnino engaged deeply with the cast and filmmakers, often invited them into his home where he cooked and showed films for them" in the article vs "Guadagnino often invited the cast and filmmakers into his home where he cooked elaborate meals and showed films" in the source
"His songs arrived a few days before shooting began. Surprised by the result, the director invited Chalamet, Hammer, and Fasano to listen to them at his house" in the article vs "When Stevens’ songs arrived on set a few days before shooting began, Guadagnino invited Chalamet, Hammer and editor Fasano to listen to them at his house" from the source

I think if those things could be rephrased or made into quotes, I would feel more comfortable passing this, but as it stands I don't think it's ready for the main page. If you ping me when that gets dealt with I'll happily come back to take another look at this review. Alternatively if another experienced DYK reviewer looks and thinks the phrasing is fine, ping me and I'll put the checkmark. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I think I resolved the issue you mention above. Damian Vo (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Length & age check out, paraphrasing is dealt with, no policy issues, original hook is my pick. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so muchhh. Damian Vo (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)