Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar bait
- The following discussion 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 22:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Oscar bait
[edit]- ... that a study by a pair of UCLA sociologists found that the 1990 film Come See the Paradise was the most blatant Oscar bait released since 1985?
ALT1: ... that for some films dismissed as Oscar bait, the nominations are what makes them profitable?
- Reviewed: Nokia Lumia 505
Created by Gaijin42 (talk), Roscelese (talk), Daniel Case (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 05:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
The following was reviewed by EagerToddler39 based on the DYK criteria:
- Newness & length - Article is new enough and long enough but doesn't appear to be complete enough. It should be more than a list of films. There's also a stub tag which needs to be addressed. The room for expansion is too large.
- Neutrality - Perhaps more independent sources should be used to support the UCLA study? This and this are both published by UCLA.
- Close paraphrasing/copyvio - Did not run dup detector as yet as I feel the article may be expanded significantly before this DYK is approved, or at the least a lot more links will be inserted that will also need checking.
- Content verifiability - Some inline citations used but there is still a ref improve tag on the page based on talk page discussion that each film identified should bear a source. There's at least one bare url on the page.
- Hook format & verifiability - Hook is in the article but is not verified by an inline citation. Please locate a footnote at the end of the line "According to the study, the movie that scored the highest and thus was the most blatant Oscar bait ever was Alan Parker's 1990 film Come See the Paradise, released by Warner Brothers".
- QPQ - Confirmed
- Other fixes - There are a few important fixes that need to be done. How does this line: "Actor/Director Martin Scorsese, Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Meryl Streep" fit into the scheme of things? It seems out of place as it stands. Some consistency issues: For most of the films you've listed you've included the year of release. This has not been done in quite a few cases such as "I Am Sam, Children of a Lesser God, A Beautiful Mind, Nell, Charly, What's Eating Gilbert Grape". Not sure I like this layout here but this won't affect the DYK nom. Does the content beginning "According to the study, the movie that scored the" really fit under the Common themes section? Perhaps insert another section heading here?
Please fix the close paraphrasing issues and locate a more appropriate citation to support the hook fact.EagerToddler39 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Um, I should have asked that reviewers hold off on this one for a while ... I'm not the only one working on it and there is much work to be done. The creator just seems to have thrown a lot of facts at the page in no particular order nor with any apparent concern for such; I nominated when I did in order to make the deadline.
I do intend to get rid of that listy section and prosify it; I'd rather the article look more like dump months. As for "a more appropriate citation for the hook fact", I am unclear what you mean. A more appropriately placed citation? Because the citation in question is to an article in Slate ... I can't think of what would be wrong with that. The current citation is at the end of the paragraph; as pointless as it looks I know it's the rules and I'll put another one at the hook fact. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: BTW, it had been destubbed prior to your review ... please amend your critique to take that into account. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually that's inaccurate. I'm referring to the talk page. It is rated as a stub-clas under "WikiProject Awards and prizes". You need to adjust the stub-class rating there or it will continue to show up as a stub. Also struck that comment to which you refer. It's definitely not appropriate. Don't know how it got there. Other reviewers please hold off on reviewing this hook until required improvements have been made. Daniel please ping me when the article's ready. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Took care of the boxes on the talk page. Didn't realize that caused it to show up as a stub still. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Um, I should have asked that reviewers hold off on this one for a while ... I'm not the only one working on it and there is much work to be done. The creator just seems to have thrown a lot of facts at the page in no particular order nor with any apparent concern for such; I nominated when I did in order to make the deadline.
OK, the expansion is done. I added another hook suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Article is now completely rewritten. Neutrality and scope issues have been addressed. Aside from blocks of quotation, no copyvio issues detected. Article is neutral, balanced and well-sourced. Good to go for original hook as the ALT is a tad boring. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
