- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Despicable Me 2
edit- ...
that the 2013 film Despicable Me 2 is the most profitable film in the history of Universal Studios?
Improved to Good Article status by Captain Assassin! (talk), Carniolus (talk), NintendoFan11 (talk). Nominated by Captain Assassin! (talk) at 03:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC).
- First, a pet peeve of mine: reporting statistics like "grossed $368,061,265 in North America, and $602,700,620 in other countries, for a worldwide total of $970,761,885" -- down to the dollar -- is ridiculous, regardless of what the official sources say; these should be rounded to the nearest million. Beyond that, a claim like "most profitable" is misleading unless it's based on constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, not absolute dollars. I'm pretty sure some source somewhere does this routinely for box-office figures. As always, Capt. Assassin, please don't kill me. EEng (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I have reservations about the source (Szalai 2013), which is a prediction that the film would become the most profitable for the studio. For the hook to pass, I think we need a more definitive source that says it has already come true. And QPQ has not been provided. -Zanhe (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I've now added a confirmed citation/source about its gross and announcement of becoming Universal's most profitable. Actually the producer's prediction was right because it was announced on July 31, while the film was released on July 3, so the film had already earned so much that they got the idea how much it would earn. But later on August 24, the confirmation of it's grossing was announced. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh I forgot about the QPQ again, it's mentioned now. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing the issues. Article is new enough (recent GA), long enough, neutral, and well referenced. Hook is verified with inline refs. Spot-checked for copyvio, no issues found. QPQ is done. Good to go. I changed the word "became" to "is" in the hook. -Zanhe (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the hook is directly sourced. Following the logic above: CEO claims it 'will be the most profitable', two sources report that prediction and then the gross is less than Jurassic Park. Granted gross (income) does not equate to net (profit), the references still don't factually support that statement. I'd attribute it or go for one of the "second highest grossing" facts. Fuebaey (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Fuebaey - the hook isn't directly sourced (I think this was deliberately misleading from the CEO - as it clearly made headlines claiming it WAS the most profitable). I am struggling to see much alternative other than to change the hook to...
- ALT 1:... that the 2013 film Despicable Me 2 was predicted to be the most profitable film in the history of Universal Studios?
- ツStacey (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey: Look in the article's "Box office" section, where the profit is mentioned which was calculated by Deadline, yeah it didn't say that the film is most profitable. But THR source was published on July 31, which was about a month after the release, so it might be right. And another thing, I'm removing the QPQ from here, as it was not a self nomination, thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Captain Assassin!, as of November 21, 2014, all nominations require QPQs, not just self-nominations, so you'll need to provide a new QPQ. I'm also astonished that you would claim that this "was not a self nomination": you nominated the article for GAN, you made edits to fix issues brought up during the review, and then you created this nomination template. It is entirely your nomination from start to finish, so even if the rules hadn't changed, a complete QPQ would have been required. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the removing QPQ earlier, I didn't know it is required for all noms now. By the way I've added it back. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey: Look in the article's "Box office" section, where the profit is mentioned which was calculated by Deadline, yeah it didn't say that the film is most profitable. But THR source was published on July 31, which was about a month after the release, so it might be right. And another thing, I'm removing the QPQ from here, as it was not a self nomination, thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
After rereading the cited sources, I agree with Fuebaey and Staceydolxx. Stacey's ALT1 is accurate and supported by the sources. However, the article text should be changed accordingly, unless there is definitive evidence that the film is indeed the most profitable in history. -Zanhe (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)