Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Jenny Skavlan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 02:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jenny Skavlan

[edit]
(
)
Jenny Skavlan
Jenny Skavlan

* ... that Norwegian model Jenny Skavlan (pictured) played the character Gitte in the Swedish film Once Upon a Time in Phuket alongside Peter Magnusson and David Hellenius?

:* ALT1:... that Jenny Skavlan (pictured) played the character Gitte in the film Once Upon a Time in Phuket alongside Peter Magnusson and David Hellenius?

:* ALT2:... that Jenny Skavlan (pictured) played the character Chris in the 2009 zombie splatter film Dead Snow?

:* ALT3:... that Norwegian model Jenny Skavlan (pictured) played the character Chris in the 2009 zombie splatter film Dead Snow?

:* ALT4:... that Jenny Skavlan (pictured) played the character Chris who has sex in an outhouse in the 2009 zombie splatter film Dead Snow?

Created by BabbaQ (talk). Self-nominated at 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC).

  • Age, length, neutrality OK. QPQ done. Unfortunately biip.no (used as a reference five times) is the Norwegian equivalent of Facebook (Facebook is actually the Norwegian equivalent of Facebook, but you get my meaning), so the bio is either self-published or fan-published (or stalker-published; let's hope not) and isn't therefore a reliable source. Picture seems fine licencewise and can be seen at DYK size; kooks are OK but uninspiring (Dead Snow has zombie Nazis; you can never have too many zombies in a hook) Belle (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I fixed the reference issue, and yes I agree with you that a Zombie hook is always needed :) Take a look and let me know what you think.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This had four {{DYKnom}}s. There should be zero for self-noms, or one otherwise. I removed one of them, and converted the others to {{DYKmake}}s. Please check the credits to verify that they're correct. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
References are fine now. Any of the hooks are OK; I'd go for ALT4 as the most salacious. Belle (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
striked the other blurbs as only ALT4 is interesting enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope the image is used. Way to many black/white photos of churches and animals etc recently.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @BabbaQ: I don't mind promoting this hook with the image, but the picture is taken at a weird angle and overemphasizes her arms. The other image in the article is better, but needs to be cropped for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! New image freely-licensed. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I decided to return this from prep as the hook and content still don't look quite right to me and I think more time will be needed to fix the issues. The last hook was "* ... that a number of films featuring Jenny Skavlan (pictured) have been promoted using clips of the Norwegian actress scantilly dressed?" It sounds a tad salacious, apart from which, it's not actually all that unusual for films to be promoted using the racier bits. Additionally, the recently added content would appear to be overstating the issue relative to the rest of the article. So I think a little cleanup of the article will probably be required, along with a more acceptable hook. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I simply can not understand what all the fuss is about? There are several other acceptable hooks, that was just not used in favour of the proposed hook. Instead people continue to talk about the "problems with the single word".. well use one of the other previously proposed hooks that can be easily used. Now more than a day of discussions has been done when the problem could have been solved within hours. And if the original hook was to controversial why even suggest an similar "controversial hook".

Simply choose one of the above proposed hooks and get on with it. Which I also suggested at the talk page for the DYKs. And if non of them are choosed and people continue to discuss this "scantilly dressed" hook then I simply will withdraw my nom because it is starting to be ridiculous. When there are several acceptable hooks offered above which has been there all along and people still continue discussing the "scantily dressed" hook in circle arguments. Just saying. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And if someone has added too much info about that single event, because other users start to discuss the meaning of a single word, then they should clean it up. Just being real.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Those alts have already been discussed and rejected because there is nothing unusual about the stated facts; "Actor X appeared in film Y" is uninteresting because actors appearing in films is commonplace. I agree the "scantilly clad" angle is also probably irredeemable, so a new hook will probably be required. If nobody else comes up with an acceptable hook in the meantime, I will re-read the article and see if I can come up with something myself sometime over the next 24 hours or so. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
She got married in 2014 in a dress she designed and made herself.[1] A bit more interesting than being in a film; if only just. That's not in the article of course, but I won't add it in case I'm told to clear up later :P Belle (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
An actress designing her own wedding dress is definitely unusual. It looks fine as a hook proposal to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
And I have now added the proposed hook into the article. Not because I agree with your assessment but because I want some action instead of just discussions. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to check the new ALT5 hook (and revisit ALT4 as well?). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    ALT5 is fine. ALT4 wasn't acceptable. The rest of my previous review stands. Good to go. Belle (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jenny_Skavlan&oldid=676008178"