Template:Did you know nominations/Roar (1981 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) 06:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Roar (1981 film)

(

)

... that at least 70 members of the cast and crew were injured while working alongside 150 untrained big cats, mostly lions and tigers, for the film Roar? [1][2]

Reviewed: Mia Khalifa (song)
Comment: Image is optional, and if the reviewer wants I can leave it out

Improved to Good Article status by NowIsntItTime (talk). Self-nominated at 14:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC).

@NowIsntItTime: First off I have to say, very enthusiastically, this is such a good choice for DYK! Roar is one of the most outrageous movies I've ever seen.

The article meets all eligibility requirements for DYK: new enough (promoted to GA on Sept. 29), long enough, etc. The sources are reliable and back up the claim being made in the hook.

As for the wording of the hook itself: the sources establish that a minimum of 70 people were injured—some say it was substantially more, like 100 or more, but I don't see anyone disputing that it's at least 70. I'd go with "at least 70" instead of "around". I also think it should be "70 cast and crew members" or "70 members of the cast and crew"—plural "70 cast and crew" by itself feels awkward. These are the only minor things keeping it from a pass.

The photo is excellent and would be great to run alongside the hook. It's appropriately eye-catching and makes the danger of the film's set (and the film's atmosphere of absurd recklessness) so immediately vivid to the potential reader. I've added "with a tiger cub" to the caption—it'd be nice to have the name of one of the types of big cat from the film somewhere near the hook, even if there are too many to concisely list out in the hook, because imo a word like "tiger" or "lion" grabs attention more than "big cat". —BLZ · talk 21:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I learned about Roar years ago, and to date, it is the most astounding movie...scratch that, THING, I've ever heard of in my life.

I have traded the old wording in to instead use "at least 70" and "70 members of the cast and crew". But I want to ask, if it isn't grammatically incorrect, to instead use "70 of the cast and crew"? To attempt to keep the characters shorter.

The animals who attacked them, and ultimately the types of Felidae that specifically appear the most in the film are indeed the Lions and Tigers. So per your suggestion, I put it in the hook like this: "150 untrained big cats, such as lions and tigers, for the film Roar?" Tell me if this is a good enough hook. Thanks. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I switched the wording from "such as lions and tigers" to "mostly lions and tigers", which reflects the tally in the article ("71 lions, 26 tigers, a tigon, nine black panthers, 10 cougars, two jaguars, four leopards"... three french hens, two turtle doves...?), as verified by this source cited in the article. It gives the reader an idea of why those two cats are being named rather than others. So long as that's OK with you...

I can hardly think of a more perfect DYK subject than this beautifully bonkers, extremely cursed film. Even better that there's such a high-quality free-license image, which will undoubtedly catch people's attention (I found a more high-res version of the same image and replaced it at Commons, btw—probably won't look much different on the Main Page, but it'll look better on clickthrough). Really nice work on the article itself, too. It makes me very happy to see it enshrined as a GA with the in-depth treatment the film deserves. —BLZ · talk 20:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

REALLY BAD NEWS @Brandt Luke Zorn:, the image turns out to have been copyrighted all along, and is not free-to-use :( . The full photo shows the 1982 copyright along with a claim that you can't use it as a specially licensed image. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)