Template:Did you know nominations/New York City Inferno
- 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 SL93 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
New York City Inferno
- ... that the 1978 film New York City Inferno was shot in just four days? Source: aVoir aLire (in French)
- ALT1:... that New York City Inferno, a 1978 gay pornography film, features a licensed soundtrack by the Village People? Source: Filme de Culte (in French)
- Reviewed: The Ramble and Lake
Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC).
The full review is to follow, though right now I have to note Morgan695 that the cast section is completely unreferenced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Do cast sections typically need to be cited? I thought the source was assumed to be the source material itself, much like how Plot sections don't require citations. Morgan695 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- From what I recall, Plot sections do not need to be cited, but cast sections generally do, especially if they include more minor roles. I could be misremembering things though and I'm open to a second opinion here. It's also partly because the DYK rules usually require at least one citation per paragraph (apart from plot sections, where citations are optional unless hook facts are mentioned there). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- From a cursory look at some featured film articles, it appears that if the casting information includes additional information about the role (casting notes, etc) then the material is cited, but simply stating that an actor portrayed a given character does not require a citation (see: 300 (film), Alien vs. Predator (film), Greed (1924 film), Pride & Prejudice (2005 film), and so on) Morgan695 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Just wanted to confirm whether your review was still ongoing, or if this should be redirected to a different editor. Morgan695 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's still ongoing, I had been waiting for other responses to the cast sourcing part. I'll finish the rest sometime today. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- From what I recall, Plot sections do not need to be cited, but cast sections generally do, especially if they include more minor roles. I could be misremembering things though and I'm open to a second opinion here. It's also partly because the DYK rules usually require at least one citation per paragraph (apart from plot sections, where citations are optional unless hook facts are mentioned there). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and stable. Both hook facts are interesting, cited inline to French sources that are accepted in good faith (although a machine translation seems to confirm the information), and a QPQ has been provided. Either hook can be used, but I think the second one is slightly more eyecatching. A third possible option could be to propose a hook based on how the film has been described as "unclassifiable", though this is up to you. Just waiting for a second opinion from another editor on if the cast section needs to be sourced, and once that is resolved this will be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- WP:FILMCAST Twice in the "Cast" section of MOS/FILM refers to using reliable sources for the cast. Please note, that I do not create film articles above the stub level, and most film stubs at WP don't source cast lists. @Morgan695: @Narutolovehinata5: I think it's probably good to consider that anything going on the Main Page gets more scrutiny than little old stub articles. i.e., more likely to be flagged about sourcing while still in Prep or Queue, and certainly once it hits the Main Page. Sorry I don't have a definite answer, but it would be to this nomination's benefit to add the sourcing. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Given the relative obscurity of the film, I'm not confident that I could find a reliable source to confirm the film's cast that isn't just the credits of film itself. In any case, it would seem strange that the standard of sourcing would be higher for DYKs than it is for Featured Articles. Morgan695 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Shawshank Redemption, all cast members sourced, is TFA on the Main Page right now. I can tell you that each review process is different from the other. Bear in mind that the FA list you looked at goes back years, to a time when even FA was different. Also, FA has undergone a change of standards in its reviews over the years, so how something was reviewed a decade ago with them, might not apply today. Once in a while, I see an old FA article undergo re-examination and be delisted - in some cases, I'm amazed at how lax FA standards were years ago.
- In some ways, I find DYK more picky than GA, certainly more likely to be challenged. @BlueMoonset: can you add anything to this? Featured Articles are reviewed, and at some point (even years later) voted on to be TFA. Once FA has signed off on its reviews, they aren't usually immediately picked to death, which is what can happen at DYK. GA is rerviewed by one lone reviewer, and whatever that reviewer decides is not usually challenged. DYK is distinctly different in every aspect of how it works. It is the only review process I know of where an approved/passed nomination is challenged, reopened, yanked off the main page or out of Prep or Queue. If you get somebody to pass this without the cast list being sourced, then more power to you. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- If that is indeed the standard, the best course of action may be to simply remove that section for the purposes of DYK; the cast is composed entirely of amateur and one-off actors, and I am doubtful of my ability to find a reliable secondary source able to substantiate the cast list outside of perhaps one or two top-billed actors. Note that the article would still meet the character count threshold for DYK even with the section removed. Morgan695 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm actually fine with leaving the cast section unsourced, if it's common for film articles. My main concern is that, other editors may have a stricter interpretation of the DYK rule that recommends that every paragraph have at least one citation (although this usually doesn't seem to apply to plot sections), and thus may disagree with the cast section lacking a reference. And my comments earlier are based on experience: in the past, there have been several instances where a nomination I approved ended up being put on hold or pulled from preps because other editors felt that the sourcing for them wasn't enough. A possible solution to the current sourcing issue could be to use the cite film template: for a cast section I don't see what's wrong with citing the credits themselves. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- The cast list must have come from somewhere -- if it was the source material itself, can't it just be cited to that? --valereee (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, the cast is sourced from the credits of the film itself. I have just referenced it accordingly in the Cast section, if that's an acceptable fix here. Morgan695 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any cites in the cast list for Titanic (1997 film) (a GA) or Private Benjamin (1980 film), just to mention a few recent films I watched. I think the paragraph with a cite under the Cast section is enough. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The cast section has now been referenced as such; if anyone would like to give this nomination an approval tick it would be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- As I said before, I'm okay with whether or not the Cast section is referenced, but I think it might be a good idea for another editor to give the final tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: If that's the case, then can you please formally redirect this nomination to another editor? Morgan695 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- As I said before, I'm okay with whether or not the Cast section is referenced, but I think it might be a good idea for another editor to give the final tick. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The cast section has now been referenced as such; if anyone would like to give this nomination an approval tick it would be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any cites in the cast list for Titanic (1997 film) (a GA) or Private Benjamin (1980 film), just to mention a few recent films I watched. I think the paragraph with a cite under the Cast section is enough. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, the cast is sourced from the credits of the film itself. I have just referenced it accordingly in the Cast section, if that's an acceptable fix here. Morgan695 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- The cast list must have come from somewhere -- if it was the source material itself, can't it just be cited to that? --valereee (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
A new editor is requested to sign off the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
