Jump to content

Talk:Halston (film)

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Isaidnoway (talk). Self-nominated at 09:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Documentary or not, Alt1 is PLOT. Alt2 boils down to nothing more than "Halston is a documentary about Halston" which... duh? If the point is supposed to be he designed the pillbox (rather than the doc being about him) then it's still a hook about him, not the movie, and if it's about Jackie wearing that hat then it's completely unrelated. How about these?
  • ALT3: ... that the director of documentary film Halston didn't want to tell the story of its subject until he learned there was more to him than just extravagant partying? Source: [3]
  • ALT4: ... that the niece of designer Halston had over 200 tapes of archival footage of him, thought to be lost, which were used in producing the documentary film Halston? Source: ditto
  • ALT5: ... that in planning the documentary film Halston, its writer-director created a database of Halston's life events in order to rate their importance for inclusion? Source: ditto
  • ALT6: ... that documentary film Halston is framed as a film noir? Source: [4]
Or if you really want to talk about the hat, you have to relate it to the movie's production;
And, of course, it would be greatly appreciated if that detail was moved out of the footnote and into prose. Kingsif (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No comments on your hook, and thanks for the offer, but - in defense of my rewriting what was proposed (my hook would again be different from all of these, but I try to help the nominator): the J. Kennedy fact is not plot in the sense we want to avoid as something fictional, but may be the common ground to connect to Halston. - Now, if he is famous and I'm the only one whom the name alone told zero, forget this ;) - Halston - "its subject" - could have been a place, a ship, ... - a hook should not rely on people already knowing what it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I got you. So, Halston is a famous fashion designer, very famous for the pillbox hat incident, but we can't assume anyone would know him. Nobody needs to know him to understand a hook about a movie. Because it shouldn't be about him. He's not the bold article.
And I think this is an important thing that is ruled out by PLOT, so let me explain. My point was, your entire hook is a very long-winded way of describing him, not the movie - and whether he's "the American fashion designer" or "the American fashion designer who designed the iconic pillbox hat" or "the American fashion designer who designed the iconic pillbox hat that Jacqueline Kennedy wore" or "the American fashion designer who designed the iconic pillbox hat that Jacqueline Kennedy wore to her husband's presidential inauguration", it is just an ever-more wordy way of replacing his name. He could be a complete unknown and it would be the same point - say it was a fictional film with a brand new character nobody knows, we wouldn't say "X movie is about Y character", even if you spun it into "X movie is about the person who did Y with Z who did A". Either it's saying "film is about main character" in a far too convoluted way, or it is summarizing the PLOT (i.e. it's what the character does in the work - fiction or not, you will know the hook fact by merely watching the work, thus it doesn't have anything "real life" i.e. outside of the film content. The hat is in the movie, it is PLOT).
Basically, we don't assume people know who the film is about, but it's not hooky to simply tell them who that is, no matter how many details of that person you give. Like, would you say "Mission Impossible is about an American spy who famously hangs from a rappel wire in an impossible mission he survived"? No. Nor would you say, if you want to challenge how I see PLOT applying, "that Mission Impossible stars the American actor known for his short stature, wonky smile, and Scientology". Why use such lengthy descriptors and avoid a name, why describe a person instead of say anything about the boldlinked movie? We can write plenty of interesting hooks about movies without ever needing to identify the subject, and simply "fashion designer" is an adequate descriptor of Halston, if he is mentioned, for those that don't know. Kingsif (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Halston could be about anything, and while your point seems to be that we should just tell people what that is (and in a way that establishes the notability as if it was the opening sentence of his article), my point is that it doesn't matter at all whether people know what a movie is about or not. It's hooky to say "that Jaws deliberately avoided showing a shark, both to create suspense and because the production did not have a waterproof model", and not "Jaws is about three men on a small boat who are scared by a shark". A documentary example for perhaps better comparison: hooky is "that one of the interviewees describing violence towards trans women in Paris is Burning was killed in an incidence of this during production", and not "Paris is Burning is about the American drag queens and trans women from the New York ball scene". Kingsif (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since I've added so much, I can do a review not considering my proposed hooks. The good: article new and long enough, written well enough, interesting and sourced. Second nom so no QPQ needed. Hooks are sourced inline (well, in footnote) and check out...
  • And the bad: but the article sections are all out of order and "Production notes" is non-standard ("Production", it should be). This should be easily solvable. Hooks ALT0 through ALT2 are a mix of Easter egg and PLOT violations, with some plain "so what?" I am concerned with potential copyvio and certain at least close paraphrasing shown here from throughout the first two paragraphs of the "Production notes", the close para shown here, and I'll note that the article uses quotations so lengthy that they are +20% of their original sources, a similar concern. I'd like to ask @Isaidnoway: about the close paraphrasing, and someone else can look at the hooks. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no copyvio. The short phrases in the production section are limited, minimal and clearly attributed to Frédéric Tcheng, the director of the film. The Vogue passages are direct quotes supported by a reliable souce. Per - WP:PARAPHRASE - Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. There are no easter eggs in any of my hooks, (a message, image, or feature hidden in a video game, film, or other, usually electronic, medium). My preferred hooks are the original one and ALT 2. If those are not acceptable, I'm fine with that. If another hook is developed and used, I'm fine with that. If the DYK is declined, I'm fine with that as well. This was my first attempt at a self-nomination, and I definitely learned something for any potential future noms. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong on both accounts, and I'll assume it's misunderstandings: linking to the film when you're referring to the person is an Easter egg, where DYK is the medium, and there are clear instances of whole fragments or sentences that are prose from the sources - not quotations - either directly lifted or only slightly rearranged. That needs fixing: above, I linked comparisons of source and article text, and the worst is even highlighted, so you can't credibly deny it. Hooks about works aren't always easy to write, but not mentioning the film when the article is the film isn't going to pass. I'm trying to give extensive feedback to be helpful to someone new to DYK, rather than just say "no", so assuming your last sentence isn't spitefully sarcastic, you're welcome. Kingsif (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is not any misunderstandings, just disagreement. I linked to the most common definition of an easter egg in relation to the media (which I assumed we were talking about, and not the Easter Bunny) and most frequently seen in films, like 16 of the best movie Easter eggs, surely you recognize that terms you've hijacked for use in the DYK medium, don't necessarily reflect the mainstream view. I just assumed you all were using the common definition incorrectly. My bad, now I know. And I also linked you to the relevant policy WP:PARAPHRASE. And the analysis of the text vs source, shows 69 out of 501 words in that particular section, and when you subtract commonly used words that can't be avoided like "a" "to" "the" "that", the number is even less. So it is limited, fair use and attributed to the person who said it. I will add to that section the publication that interviewed Frédéric Tcheng and the date of the source as well. Thanks for your feedback. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if you'll cooperate with someone else, needed to review alt hooks anyway. Remember, highlighting only shows up words that are used in long sequences unchanged, which is copyvio - close paraphrasing you actually have to read and I assure you is much more than 11% of the source (69/501 is still high anyway) - and this also means that all those auxiliary words should be counted because their placement contributes to direct copying. Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I conducted a copyedit of the article, which I think removed most of the paraphrasing concerns. Please review the changes to ensure I didn't change the meaning of sentences. I am concerned that the critical reception section is basically a series of quotes from reviews and MOS:QUOTE says Wikipedia should not overuse quotes. I'd recommend that editors try to paraphrase some of the reviews, although I will not deny approval for this hook because of this.

I added a "cn" tag and a "who" tag to the article that should be resolved before approval. As for the hooks, all of them are cited by their respective sources, but ALT 5 isn't exactly in the article, so I crossed it out. My preference is ALT 6, as it is short, hooky, talks about the documentary and is the most intersting to me. I also like ALT 7 if slightly reworded. Please ping me when the cn tag and who tag are addressed so I can re-review the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today, Isaidnoway reverted the DYK notice on their talk page, with the edit summary, "Not interested". Does this mean Isaidnoway wants to withdraw this nomination? Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes Isaidnoway (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halston_(film)&oldid=1202557527"