Template:Did you know nominations/Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds

Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focuses on a gay man who pretends to be straight so he can seduce another man?

• Source: Cohen, Neil (November 2, 2006). "Just Desserts - 2004 Out Far! Sensation Eating Out is Back for Seconds". Echo Magazine. Archived from the original on February 24, 2007. Retrieved February 20, 2024.

• ALT1: ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds featuring a scene where a character has sex in a portable toilet caused many actors to drop out? Source: Quantic, David (May 29, 2007). "Serving Seconds: The Making of Eating Out 2". Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Ariztical Entertainment.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Farnese Artemis

Improved to Good Article status by PanagiotisZois (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC).

• Not a review, but ALT0 fails WP:DYKFICTION. ALT1 should be fine on that front.--Launchballer 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Thank you for contributing to the discussion. :) Taking that into account, would ALT0 work as "that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focusing on a gay man who pretends being straight to seduce another man came from writer-director Phillip J. Bartell's desire to invert the first film's premise?"? I can come up with a few alternatives if needed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 still violates that policy I'm afraid, and I still think ALT1 is more interesting. I would however suggest a slightly shorter version of ALT1 per WP:DYKTRIM, ALT1a: ... that a scene in Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds caused many actors to drop out?. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I fear that if ALT1 is trimmed, it will end up becoming less interesting. On the one hand, it can be argued that it creates a sense of mystery. As in, "why did many actors drop out?". But on the other hand, the idea that actors dropped out of a role because the character has sex in a portable toilet is definitely unique and will also catch people's attention; I think. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I can see arguments either way, I'll let a reviewer/promoter decide.--Launchballer 22:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, this is not a review either, but I'm afraid retaining ALT1's bit about sex in a toilet would be borderline "excessively sensational or gratuitous" as per WP:DYKINT; concealing the scene in question through ALT1a should arguably make for an "Intriguing hook that leaves the reader wanting to know more". Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this requires PZ's attention as there is still a valid hook on this page, i.e. ALT1a. This needs a reviewer.--Launchballer 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)