Template:Did you know nominations/Bridget Jones's Baby

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: rejected by 97198 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bridget Jones's Baby

(

)

~~... that the production on Bridget Jones's Baby has finally begun after the development of the film since 2009?~~

ALT1: ~~... that Bridget Jones's Baby is not based on the Helen Fielding's third novel, instead it is based on her columns for The Independent?~~
Reviewed: Utica, New York (2nd nomination)

Created by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 02:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

Created on 5 August and nominated the next day. The article is fully referenced, neutral and there is no close paraphrasing. Both hooks are interesting. Main hook and ALT1 are verified through online sources. There is no image, which is okay. QPQ done. Good to go.Krish Talk 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed this from prep because the original hook has grammatical issues that I can't solve: "after the development of the film since 2009" doesn't read well and I can't come up with another version on the fly. The ALT1 hook also has some minor problems, but I could probably have substituted it if it had been adequately sourced. Unfortunately, it wasn't; the source merely says it could be based on columns author Helen Fielding wrote in 2005 and 2006 for The Independent which is speculative at best. Further, while Fielding has written a third novel about Bridget Jones, it is not Fielding's third novel: she wrote one before the first Jones book and at least one other non-Jones book before the third one, which was published in 2013. But the BBC source is also at the end of a highly problematic sentence, and there were too many other prose issues in the article to ignore; this needs a copyedit before it can appear on the main page. A possible version of ALT1, assuming a definitive source can be found for the movie being based on the columns from The Independent:

ALT2: ... that the third Bridget Jones movie is not based on Helen Fielding's third novel about Jones, but instead is based on her columns for The Independent?

Only after I had pulled the hook did I realize that contrary to what the review says, I don't see any evidence that a QPQ has been done. Captain Assassin! hasn't listed one anywhere on this page. A QPQ must be supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: QPQ's done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Captain Assassin!, glad to hear it, but the missing QPQ was discovered after I'd pulled the hook. You still need to address the other issues noted above, including the many prose problems (have you requested a copyedit yet?). There hasn't been a single edit to the article since my review. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

While the copyedit has been done (I haven't checked the result), the article and source still do not support ALT2. It's been two weeks since the original hook was pulled from prep, and that's long enough. Captain Assassin!, if a new hook isn't proposed within 48 hours (or a new source found that can support that ALT2 hook), the nomination will be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: It's confirmed by Variety now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Captain Assassin!, you're joking, right? The Variety article starts out "It is rumored that", and the line about the basis of the movie begins "It will likely be based". The article doesn't confirm anything. It's a 2009 story about a movie in the early stages of planning, which has undergone major changes including several script rewrites in the six years since. At this point, if you can't find a 2015 source to confirm the hook, I'm sorry to say that ALT2 is dead in the water, the current text in the article needs revising to reflect the lack of certainty in the cited source, and you'll need to propose an ALT3. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The hook issues raised on August 30 still have not been addressed, with the sole attempt so clearly ineligible—and nothing done in over 72 hours since this was pointed out despite well over a hundred edits elsewhere on Wikipedia—that I see no point in holding this open any longer. The nomination is being closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)