Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/The Stand Up

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 08:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Stand Up

edit
(
)

5x expanded by MichaelQSchmidt (talk). Self nominated at 06:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC).

  • A superb 5x expansion and an egregious AfD nomination. Sven clearly did not look up for reliable sources beforehand. Well-referenced throughout. Though it is technically still at AfD, God must be blind if it is ever deleted (no way!), so it's safe to say that this article is Good To Go when the AfD nom is properly withdrawn for good. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • DYK rules are quite clear: this may not be approved while an AfD is still in progress, no matter how inappropriate said AfD may appear to be. The tick is approval, so it shouldn't have been used. The nomination may be "good to go" when the AfD closes (assuming it is indeed not deleted), but as of this moment it is not. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to ruffle feathers, but we could have a reasonable application of WP:IAR in this situation. That being said, BlueMoonset's concerns are understood. The nominator has been notified and his withdrawal was requested, but he has not yet responded. Barring his withdrawal, options include either a keep and close by someone per an application of WP:OUTCOMES or our simply waiting for the AFD to run for another 4 days and be closed as a keep on the 22nd. No one other than the nominator wishes a delete (of the earlier version), his concerns have been addressed, and the project has been improved. I can wait four days. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned clearly that it is "Good to Go when the AfD nomination is properly withdrawn for good, did I not? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes Bonkers, you did, but those words go with the ? icon, not the tick. The tick means that the article can be promoted immediately without qualification, and only gets applied when an AfD is settled and out of the way, not before. Now you know. (Similarly, nominations that still need a QPQ done should only get a ? icon, even if they're otherwise ready.) Michael, one of the unfortunate things about an AfD is that it puts a large ugly box at the top of the article. As long as the box is there (or, indeed, any type of box highlighting an issue), a link to the article shouldn't appear on the main page. Thanks for being patient. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • AfD has ended as "keep", but checking the hook I don't find that it's supported by the article. The article says that the premise is appropriate to a Black or Rogen vehicle (only, like the review, it misspells "Rogen" as "Rogan"), but the review it's paraphrasing isn't saying that at all: it's noting the movie's restraint, which would not be the case if it had been Black or Rogen movie, replete with cliches, but also that the movie doesn't replace said cliches with "meaningful" material. A new hook is needed; I can't approve the one on offer, so I'm striking it. The "mixed" reviews wording in the article seems a bit of a stretch, given what's presented: you have one reasonably positive festival review, by a stand-up comedian who admits bias, and then three negative reviews later, when the film is released to theaters. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT1 cannot be used as is: it's a very close paraphrase of one of the reviews, which contains "elevate the character well out of Manic Pixie Dream Girl Territory"; this is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Please either figure out how to quote the phrase exactly (or some portion of it exactly) in a hook and use quote marks, or devise a different hook altogether. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it is not okay to reuse "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" from the review without attribution; nor is it okay to state the development half of the hook as a fact rather than one reviewer's opinion—a quote would at least have made it clear that someone else's words are being used. I'm sorry, but I offered you two choices: quote the phrase, or devise a different hook, and you did neither. That's it for me here. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just wished to include a bluelink to serve our readers. It might have been easier to simply have placed the phrase it in quotes yourself, add an atribution, and explain why, rather than simply stike out the hook. I have done so myself, thank you. No doubt someone else will come by and approve hook #3. Thank you for your comments. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Reinforcing tick following the closure of the bad AfD. ALT3 is pursuant to Blue Moonset's strict guidelines and I am not hesitant to pass this hook. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There are no imaginable circumstances that a 235-character hook should be eligible for approval or promotion. I strongly suggest that once an ALT4 is proposed that is of proper length and content, that someone other than Bonkers The Clown be found to review it, given his willingness to approve hooks that violate the rules, and the problems with his original review. Note to MichaelQSchmidt: the reason I did not simply add quotes to ALT2 is that it was flawed: it made a statement of fact out of an opinion by one reviewer, and quotes wouldn't have fixed that. (For ALT3, I'm not sure why "allowed" is being used; it doesn't add anything but length. I'd get the movie first, and Pixie Girls as soon as Levieva as possible.) I'd also like to suggest a copyedit: there's far too much passive voice throughout: "It was concluded", "It was offered", etc. Words like "wrote" and "said" are better than "offered", and sentences are not direct as one would expect in an encyclopedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • While appreciating any editor's desire to stick to rules as if they were writ in stone and inviolate, policy suggests an "imaginable circumstance". A point here is that DYK "rules" are neither guideline nor policy, but simply instructions based upon guideline and policy telling how we might best create a hook to draw readers into learning about certain topics. That one editor may wish to WP:IAR in his effort to improve the project does not require he then be recused from editing or contributing in that area he wishes to improve. Opinion and commentary by film reviewers are their views, not mine, so passive voice is neutral voice. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: I included the inline cite link below only to show a DYK reviewer just which source published that view outside of Wikipedia. That said...
As for the inline cite link... if this 193 character ALt#4 hook is now suitable, please simply remove that link upon approval. A complete strikethrough should not be necessary. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed; I'd like to suggest that the review start from scratch, with ALT 4 the hook under consideration. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Length/date/QPQ are good and hook cited. Article has a neutral point of view and is accurate to its sources. While there is not a cite in the cast section, I think this is acceptable because I cannot see a logical place to put a cite in the section that wouldn't look weird. Should be ok to go. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Stand_Up&oldid=1022742416"