Talk:The Abysmal Brute (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

A fact from The Abysmal Brute (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 April 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1923 film The Abysmal Brute (advertisement pictured) included comedic episodes that were not in the 1911 story by Jack London on which it was based?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Abysmal Brute (film).

Wikipedia

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Film advertisement

... that the 1923 film The Abysmal Brute (advertisement pictured) had comedic scenes added that were not in the 1911 story by Jack London it was based on?

Reviewed: Disability Day of Mourning

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ~~@SL93: I see two issues before this nomination can proceed.~~

~~The plot summary requires a citation to a secondary source per WP:PLOTCITE. Every other paragraph contains at least one citation.~~
I can't verify the citation for the hook. The pages in the Google Books preview are unnumbered, but it appears that your citation is for the first page of chapter 7, where I can find no reference to this film.

~~If you resolve these two issues, ping me and I'll revisit this review!~~ Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy DYK and the manual of style at MOS:PLOTSOURCE have never required the plot to be cited because the film itself is considered to be the reference. This is only the second time in years that someone has asked me to cite the plot. You linked to an essay. Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines states, "D2: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." SL93 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My Google Books link opens directly to the correct page which says, "Denny was also responsible for introducing 'some comedy ideas' into what he called 'the hokum' of an adaptation of Jack London's boxing story, The Abysmal Brute (1923). SL93 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on plot summaries. I see you're right about that. When I click the Google Books link in citation 3 it doesn't open to page 61, and page 61 not available to view, but I was able to find the sentence you mentioned by searching the book in Google Books for "hokum" and reading the short search result. So I'd say this nomination is good to go! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Murphy That is so strange. I see the whole page. Thanks for the review. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]