Template:Did you know nominations/Raya and the Last Dragon
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Pamzeis (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Raya and the Last Dragon
- ... that Raya and the Last Dragon was criticized for the lack of Southeast Asian representation in its cast? (source: [1])
5x expanded by Wingwatchers (talk). Self-nominated at 00:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC).
- Wingwatchers, do you mind working on that lead a bit? The first couple of sentences is all WALT DISNEY and various names in blue links and it's very distracting--I'd rather hear something about the movie itself, not all those rather boring production details, in the opening sentences. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, that's the distinct nature of film-related articles, same with a featured article Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, Wingwatchers--it's not inherent to film articles and points at a kind of fetishization of marketing and production over the (artistic) product. Note the difference with another FA, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Done, just hopes no one would revert it. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, how about now? Wingwatchers (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wingwatchers, it's much better, thanks--and I thought I'd just go ahead and review it. But the problem is this nominated this as a 5x expansion--meaning that it has to have been expanded in the last seven days: "Former redirects, stubs, disambiguation pages, and other pages in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold[1] or more within the past seven days are also acceptable as "new" articles." I don't see, in the edit history, how that works for this article. Alternatively, you can nominate this for GA, and then try to get it on the front page as a GA... Drmies (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, GA passed. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wingwatchers, would you believe that we watched the first hour, and then my kid watched the rest without me?? And it has Awkwafina in it! Drmies (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. Now back to the point.Wingwatchers (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wingwatchers, would you believe that we watched the first hour, and then my kid watched the rest without me?? And it has Awkwafina in it! Drmies (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, GA passed. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wingwatchers, it's much better, thanks--and I thought I'd just go ahead and review it. But the problem is this nominated this as a 5x expansion--meaning that it has to have been expanded in the last seven days: "Former redirects, stubs, disambiguation pages, and other pages in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold[1] or more within the past seven days are also acceptable as "new" articles." I don't see, in the edit history, how that works for this article. Alternatively, you can nominate this for GA, and then try to get it on the front page as a GA... Drmies (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, how about now? Wingwatchers (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, Wingwatchers--it's not inherent to film articles and points at a kind of fetishization of marketing and production over the (artistic) product. Note the difference with another FA, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies:, that's the distinct nature of film-related articles, same with a featured article Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The point is on your talk page. To any DYK watchers: the user has not been forthcoming about their past, and this last comment of theirs came right after they finally disclosed an earlier account--which I do not think is their first account. And why all this? Because checking for a QPQ I found that this account is brand-new, and of course it takes an experienced editor to nominate something for DYK and then, when problems arise, manages to turn it into a GA overnight. That one GA is good for us, but the deception is not. We'll see where this goes. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- OK Wingwatchers, here is what I will do. I do not believe that the other account was your first, and so I cannot accept that you've never been here before, here at DYK--so if you want this to proceed, which it easily can, you will have to do a QPQ. Please ping me when that's done and we'll move on. Drmies (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Should I remind you that this DFK, not a sockpuppet investigation. For verification, you can either contact the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. for matching IP address of another account of mine (other than Silencewof), or by message me on Fandom. Thanks, I hopes you understand.Wingwatchers (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- This getting more complicated than I have expect. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Should I remind you that this DFK, not a sockpuppet investigation. For verification, you can either contact the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. for matching IP address of another account of mine (other than Silencewof), or by message me on Fandom. Thanks, I hopes you understand.Wingwatchers (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Wingwatchers: Are you still working on this? Pamzeis (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Na, No, Wingwatchers (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
