Talk:Better Off Dead?

Did you know nomination

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 23:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a reviewer called a documentary on assisted suicide "so funny"? Source: "What I wasn't expecting was for it to be quite so funny." Better Off Dead review – a powerful (and funny) case against assisted dying
  • ALT0a: ... that a reviewer did not expect a documentary on assisted suicide to be so funny?
  • ALT1: ... that a reviewer said that Better Off Dead? "unnerves you so much you half-wish you hadn't seen it"? Source: "Every so often, a documentary comes along that unnerves you so much you half-wish you hadn't seen it." The week in TV: Better Off Dead?; Bridgerton; The Gathering; The Big Cigar – review
  • ALT2: ... that in Better Off Dead?, there is an automated hotline for assisted suicide? Source: "We hear the automated voice message on the 24-hour Maid hotline that those seeking to die can call." Better Off Dead? review – Liz Carr’s blistering film may well change your mind about assisted dying
  • Reviewed: Grant Hermanns

Moved to mainspace by Sdrqaz (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC).

• no issues with the article. original hook is bad, taking a quote out of context. alt1 is boring. alt2 is confusing, and made me think that there was a hotline you could call in the documentary. ltbdl (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Rating this article as a Start seems ... pretty low (is it "developing but still quite incomplete"?). If I may be frank, this review is seems a little harsh. ALT0 was not taken out of context: the reviewer is saying that the documentary was funny, no (see the quote)? I don't know how to address the charge of ALT1 being boring (I thought that something being unnerving and making a reviewer regret watching was interesting), and as for ALT2, I don't really follow: I believe that they did call the hotline in the documentary. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  of course the review is harsh, this is going on the main page. as for alt2, the wording is unclear. perhaps say something like "they call an automated hotline"? ltbdl (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've added ALT0a, which hopefully addresses the concern of "original hook is bad, taking a quote out of context", given that it is the same formulation as the source. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  My 2c: I'd paraphrase so funny to hilarious instead of writing it in Wikipedia's voice; see MOS:QUOTEPOV. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and Ltbdl: My interpretation of QUOTEPOV was that attribution was preferred in this instance as "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation" (second paragraph). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Right, which is why it should be directly attributed to The Times instead of referring to the publication as merely the reviewer, and so funny should neither be quoted nor written in Wiki's voice since it creates POV issues either way:

  • ALT0b: ... that a reviewer did not expect a documentary on assisted suicide would be that hilarious?

  hilarious should be neutral enough with attribution to the source, IMO. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and Ltbdl: I don't understand how hilarious is more neutral than funny, given that funny seems like a not overly emotive ... simple descriptive term. I also do not think that it is necessary to mention which source that is in the hook, given that it goes against much of established practice – if you see theleekycauldron's essay (and its application of WP:WEASEL), the addition of "a reviewer" is already more than what is necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz: Except the reviewer didn't just say funny but so funny, which is near-synonymous with hilarious; the latter can just be as neutral with proper attribution to the speaker. I concede to the "reviewer" bit, tho; I've slightly modified my alt suggestion to reflect this.Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but the issue with ALT0b's that is that it's comparable to the so in the actual source: by changing so funny to that hilarious, you're actually changing the degree of humor (yes, I can't believe that I am saying this) to so so funny.

  New review of the hooks requested, given ltbdl's inactivity on this; other parts of the review have been completed. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

my opinion still stands. anyway, if you have to run this article, run alt1. ltbdl (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would still prefer a new review of the hooks. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I can't do an end run around a previous reviewer. Consensus is required to run a hook, and ltbdl made a review that objected in good faith to ALT0. I will say that I don't see at all how ALT0 takes a quote out of context, and I do support it running. Either ltbdl can withdraw their objection, or I can ask for more voices at WT:DYK to see if we can get a consensus to run this anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    I also don't see the problem with ALT0a, though I would suggest tweaking it slightly: ALT0c: ... that a reviewer was surprised to find Liz Carr's 2024 assisted suicide documentary "quite so funny"?--Launchballer 17:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

    I've changed your suggestion to ALT0c as ALT0b was suggested above, and changed indentation per MOS:INDENTMIX. I feel that such a change would be adding extraneous information with little benefit (see WP:DYKTRIM). ALT0 and ALT0a are absolutely fine and within policy; I don't understand why extra information needs to be added to it. As leeky suggested, I'm going to start a discussion at WT:DYK given how long this has now languished. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My ALT0c added "Liz Carr's 2024" and "quite", both of which I would describe as necessary context, which should be provided per WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE. I'm sure a more merciless prepbuilder will excise any bits they deem extraneous.--Launchballer 11:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Aighty, this has been languishing for long enough and we're in a backlog. I'm approving ALTs 0, 0a, and 0c only. The promoter can take any one of 'em and pare them back as necessary. If someone wants to take me to a noticeboard for it, feel free. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)