Jump to content

Talk:Emily Goss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Emily Goss's role as Jennifer in the film The House on Pine Street earned her four Best Actress award nominations, of which she won three, in the American festival circuit? source, source, source.
    • ALT1: ... that the character Louise, played by Emily Goss in the film Snapshots, is based on a real Louise, whom the writer-producer's mother was romantically involved with in the 1930s? Source: "Our writer-producer Jan Miller Curran was with her mother when she was 94 and... said, 'Louise is here... the love of my life.' So then Jan learned... of their secret relationship... in the 1930s." source

Created/expanded by Mungo Kitsch (talk). Self-nominated at 05:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Unknown
  • Interesting: No - see below
  • Other problems: No - see below
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Hello, Mungo and welcome to DYK! Review as follows: The article is new enough, long enough and neutral. However, it includes a WP:IMDB source and I am unsure about the reliability of several other sources, including Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep. To add to that, the YouTube link does not appear to be uploaded by an official channel, making it unreliable. Additionally, per MOS:FILMCAST uncredited roles need a source. the copyvio checker showed up a 50%+ similarity with a source, which may suggest over quotation. On top of that, the subject has unclear notability. I'm unsure which roles are significant and The House on Pine Street appears to have a questionable notability. None of her awards seem significant and I'm not seeing any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ALT0 isn't very interesting given the festival is not significant enough to have an article. I think ALT1 is interesting but it seems to focus more on the character, not the actress which isn't exactly ideal... QPQ not needed. We'll need some work but we'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mungo Kitsch: Hello, will you still be able to address the concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis, thank you for your very constructive and enthusiastic feedback, and @Narutolovehinata5, I appreciate your reminder; apologies for my delayed response. One thing I did soon after Pamzeis's feedback was abridge the quote in my second DYK, in hopes of curbing my overquoting. And I will intend on getting back to the Emily Goss article fairly soon, and further expanding and fortifying it in the pursuit of it passing the DYK nomination. If you look at my editing history, I've had ten straight days where I did not edit, one big reason being that I have family-related matters that needed attending to, such as Thanksgiving and another more somber matter. Anyways, let me get back to the Emily Goss article again, probably sometime this week. I will try to do some further rephrasing of the DYKs already here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pamzeis: Yes, I've got an update or two. I made this and other edits, which had the primary purpose of expanding on where The House on Pine Street premiered, and later to add some theatre to her repertoire. I am also going to see what type of information can be sourced from this podcast, which is another interview with Goss.
I am genuinely unsure, though, what to do to rephrase or spruce up this DYK. The DYK has my consent to be closed. I thought of this entry as a fun way to get exposure for the article I made, and my inexperience with DYK is apparent, as this is my first time being here after having made an article. I fully intend on expanding and refining the Emily Goss article, but to do so on my own time, without pertinent expectation from other parties and institutions. Feel free to add it to your watchlist, or drop in/contribute whenever. Thank you for your guidance. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do my best to break it down
  • Sources: First and foremost, WP:IMDB is an unreliable source and will have to be removed/replaced. This may apply to other sources (highlighted above). See WP:RS for what contributes to a source being reliable. Usually, the bare minimum is paid staff and an editorial. If you are unsure, you can ask at WP:RSN. Uncredited roles need a source because they can't be source back to the original material... because they didn't credit her.
  • The copyvio detector shows a 50%+ similarity with the Addicted to Horror Movies article. While the quote is properly attributed, it is very long. See WP:OVERQUOTE for more details but this could be interpreted as a copyright violation given it is more than 50% of the source's text.
  • Regarding notability, Goss would have to meet either WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR to warrant an article.
    • GNG means that there need to be multiple (i.e. more than night) reliable (see comments above on an source being reliable), independent (ones with a lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved) sources that cover her significantly (not just one or two sentences about her but a, say, whole section devoted to her)
    • ANYBIO means that a person needs to meet one of the three criteria. The only one I can see Goss potentially meeting is the first one. However, her awards do not seem very significant (the criteria for me is an award being rated high or top importance on WikiProject Awards)
    • NACTOR also means that a person needs to meet one of the three criteria. Again, the only one I could see Goss meeting is the first one (multiple significant roles). The only major role she seems to have had is in The House on the Pine Street, which is only one. The production also has questionable notability per GNG.
  • OK, onto the hooks:
    • ALT0. It's not very interesting. An award that's not noticeable to have an article isn't going to interest many people. If the award was an Oscar, then you might have something, but it's not.
    • ALT1 is interesting, but it's more about the character than the actress. Without the actress, the hook would have the same meaning. Goss's name seems to be shoved in there for the sake of her name being in the hook. This would make a reader more likely to want to find an article on the character instead of the actress.
  • Yeah, I think that's pretty much it... Pamzeis (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, DYK is definitely a fun way to get exposure for an article but it can get tricky when a reviewer (or someone else) and nominator disagree. Don't worry about being inexperienced because that's better than not trying at all and never becoming experienced. We'll get there! Pamzeis (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pamzeis:: Again, thanks for the constructive feedback. I'll do what I can to make this worth your time. Based on your feedback, I think I'll scratch the first DYK and replace it with another factoid that I have in mind. Since the awards she won are of varying notability, that is what factors into your judgment that the first point is not viable, at present, as a DYK. Therefore, I will put increased effort into improving both the article and this DYK presentation. Thanks again. Feel free to check in in a few days to see what I come up with. I intend on making this a priority. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for checking in again, and I'm glad you asked. I did sift through @Pamzeis:'s critique, and found some time to flesh things out today. For one, the WP:COPYVIO concerns posed here are now lesser. (NOTE: Some CPOYVIOs that I did not see until later today, and I have checked multiple times, are that of wiki.ng and olasmediatv.com. Those are unreliable sources, and the text clearly copied the Wikipedia article, and not the other way around. Not sure what I can do about that, but that's clearly their plagiarism and not mine.) I have removed the quote that I had made about Goss's attitude toward Jennifer, and will likely reintroduce the information in an alternate fashion later. I also expanded coverage of her, including her role in Painting Anna. I decided to scratch the first two DYKs altogether to replace them with potentially interesting alternates; I believe the last one I added about the pregnancy prosthetic, ALT5, is my personal favorite DYK at this time. As for notability concerns, the best I can do is continue to add information about her from diverse and reliable sources. And speaking of WP:RS, even before your comment today, the IMDB and Youtube citations were removed by user @Kbabej:. I replaced some of the information that was removed with a valid non-IMDB source.
I will continue to expand and improve this article. I'm glad I could find the time today to do that. Naruto and Pamzeis, if you like what you see here, let me know. If it still misses the mark by DYK standards, let me know too. I'm sorry I have lumbered around time-wise, but I hope that its present state is an improvement, and that this is worth your time. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance at the sources, many of them seem to be of questionable reliability at best. I will review the alts and copyvio next year. Pamzeis (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pamzeis: Sure, of course. I appreciate you liking the alt DYKs that I posted, particularly ALT3. I ultimately knew that the first two, by themselves, couldn't cut it. With you deciding that the ALTs are passable, what do you advise at this time moving forward? Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the sources—specifically Film Ink, Queer Media Matters, Antaeus.org, Fern TV, Addicted to Horror Movies, Dan's Papers, Go Mag, Three Women in a Box and North Coast Rep—are of questionable reliability at the moment. Can you please justify why they should be considered acceptable per WP:RS? Pamzeis (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pamzeis:: Sure, I'll take a gander at that, because I have had a challenge with thinking about it during these two months. I believe your concerns are valid, and it's not a matter of me "rejecting" that advice as much as it is me trying to think about the way that removing the sources would impact the article without gutting it. I have felt that inclusion of these sources was valid because of them exhibiting testimonies of Emily Goss in ways that are not mere user-generated content such as IMDB and Youtube being formerly on there.
Dan's Papers is a regional news and culture website for "Long Island's East End" that, despite its name, has more contributors and writers than just Dan Rattiner. It comes off to me as not too dissimilar to a local newspaper with a cultural bent, many of which are acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. FilmInk is a webzine that details news and films and goings-on in the film industry, particularly that of Australia. I am confident that it is an RS, because out of the presently 1,361 hits from searching FilmInk, almost all of them are because of FilmInk citations in an article; while that, by itself, does not an RS make, I believe that it as a webzine that is not self-published nor user-generated makes it worthy of being cited on Wikipedia, kind of like what metalstorm.net is to the worldwide metal music scene, Pitchfork is to the music world generally, and Variety is to the movie world generally. I believe the same argument can apply to Addicted to Horror Movies, as a zine that gave coverage toward, and reviews of, horror movies, until it became inactive in 2017. These may be more marginal than mainstream sites such as The Guardian, which is also cited on the article; but as cultural commentary that are not personal blogs, they, in my opinion, should not be shut out. I don't see how a website such as FernTV.ca, in this context, is problematic. I feel the concern here is that "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact," but these websites are journalistic and not user-generated and not user-edited. However, if the concerns are WP:INTERVIEW based, then that is definitely understandable. I know that interviews can be reliable, and that such from reputed sources are generally acceptable, but that "someone saying it in an interview does not make it true".
A source like Queer Media Matters can be seen as having a political bias, therefore jading the objectivity of what they post; something that has not stopped PinkNews from being on the Perennial sources list. But the specific Queer Media Matters website features an interview with Goss, which therefore features valid information about her film career. Although, come to think of it, Queer Media Matters is almost exclusively run by Dana Piccoli (but some articles have other authors), but does not come off to me as a mere "personal blog" or "fansite". I have encountered several of those which I chose not to cite on the article, one of which is a blog of only eight posts, and none since 2020.
Come to think of it, some of them likely do have independent sourcing concerns; and regarding the North Coast Rep, Three Women in a Box, and Antaeus citations, I have either removed or replaced them with third-party coverage.
With that said, if a peer review decides that these sources do not cut it, then I will do what I can to accommodate. I really want them to be on the page, but you question their validity. Therefore, I have brought it up for discussion here, as you previously advised, to seek additional opinions; feel free to input there if you want. I believe that we have a cross section of WP:INTERVIEW, WP:INDEPENDENT, and maybe even of WP:ADVERT (but hopefully not) at hand, and I hope that additional opinions can assist in the matter, considering how much/little such sources have been discussed on Wikipedia. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Just in case FilmInk is not passable source, I will do what I can to find an alternate RS at least for this DYK, in hopes that this can finally have a passing grade. It is difficult, though, because I'm seeing a lot of "where to stream" websites with no encyclopedic value. I definitely want to take your good advice to heart and be able to use it, because I'm still invested in this and hope this to succeed, and I know you hope this too. Thanks for all your help. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I just added a source from iNews for her uncredited role in Suburbicon. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mungo Kitsch: and @Pamzeis:. I have rephrased all the copyvio that I could find in the article. It should be OK in that respect, now. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mungo, it should help you in the future to know that just copying and pasting material into an article without quotation marks or acknowledgement is not quotation. It is copyright violation (copyvio), which must be either rephrased or deleted. On the other hand, a quotation is an acknowledged copy of someone else's work, that is, it must either have quotation marks or be in a blockquote, and it must be cited. Storye book (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pamzeis What do you think of the changes? SL93 (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree on the sources. Maybe this should be closed as failed. SL93 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m still very unsure on the sourcing. No offence meant, but most of your explanation feels like "I think this source looks similar to another reliable one so it’s reliable". For example, just because a source doesn’t look like a blog doesn’t mean it isn’t. Queer Media Matters, being run by one person, is essentially one, so it needs to be removed per WP:SELFPUB. For the sources I brought up, I could not find any evidence of an editorial policy through a look at their site. I’ll try to explain more tomorrow because it’s getting pretty late where I live. Pamzeis (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pamzeis, SL93, I hate to say this, but I agree. I feel like I have looked all over the internet, and have tried very hard and wanted this DYK to work, but the sources available online are oftentimes and usually insufficient; this has been the most serious point of struggle for me since your first critique. I know not to just put "any" source on an article, but have learned via this process about more of the nuances of the RS standards. A good aspect of that is because Goss is, at present, a prominent indie actress, with a handful of wiki-notable roles, who has only episodically appeared in mainstream productions; therefore meaning that coverage of her is sporadic at best in the "right type of sources". And, while I tried and searched for a good RS to back up ALT3, the Painting Anna bit, I don't believe that that film has enough coverage to be considered notable. There is a Kickstarter page for the film, and a review on insistingsimplicity.com written by a guy named JR on his blog, neither of which cut it here, and not much more than that. So if the film can’t be considered notable, then why have a DYK on the front page mentioning it?
Per the advice here, I have deleted the information cited by QMM on the article. The contributors to that website who are other than Piccoli have perhaps written a grand total of three or so articles. So, yeah, it is essentially a blog.
I think the best DYK bit up there, at least in regard to references, is the final one, ALT5, cited by Scream magazine. It is a print magazine (good), but I do not see a listed staff and I am not sure how to navigate proving or disproving which sources are peer-reviewed and which ones are not. Also, it is not mentioned on WikiProject Horror’s list of reliable sources, and I would like to solicit opinions on the magazine’s reliability at some point.
Also, I just got opened up to the Wikipedia Library, which will be a great treasure trove of new resources for me, but I do not believe that this would move the needle in enough of the right direction for this DYK in due time.
If ALT5 does not work, then I am willing to graciously admit failure. I will continue to maintain and improve this article, and am grateful for the help that everyone here offered me, and am sorry I couldn't deliver on this RS matter, and took as long as I did here; I take full responsibility for this. The best thing to do is wait for her career to move forward, which it will, follow the coverage in the future, and update the article accordingly; at present, as I said in the first paragraph and as you, Pamzeis, have tapped into with your critiques, there just isn’t enough coverage of her in what are unambiguously bona fide sources and media. And if there was enough, then many of them would already have been on the article. There is some ‘’The House on Pine Street’’ and ‘’Shook’’ coverage on Bloody Disgusting, a valid RS supported by WikiProject Horror’s aforementioned list; albeit with limited coverage on Goss personally. I would like to utilize such, especially since the ‘’Pine Street’’ article, which I have not meaningfully involved myself with at present, is only sporadically up to Wikipedia’s standards; the entire plot section is “a ghost haunts a house” in all lowercase, which is a very… elementary and vague way to put it.
I have reflected on the advice given here, and I do not believe the Emily Goss article is ready for a DYK approval at this time; I and my ego are disappointed to say this, but it is my present rational conclusion at present. If/when I come back to DYK for this or any other article, I’ll make sure to bear this experience in mind in pursuit of a stronger DYK presentation. To Pamzeis and everyone else here, I appreciate you all and I know you are doing good work here, and I’m sorry I couldn’t make this DYK nomination work.
Mungo Kitsch (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marking for closure as withdrawn by nominator. SL93 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emily_Goss&oldid=1202239524"