Template:Did you know nominations/The Green Planet (TV series)
- 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 SL93 (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Green Planet (TV series)
- ... that triffids filmed The Green Planet, a documentary series narrated by David Attenborough? Source: https://www.tvbeurope.com/production-post/how-a-triffid-captured-the-green-planet
- ALT1: ... that the David Attenborough-narrated nature documentary The Green Planet has been compared to both horror films and a "plant porno"? Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-green-planet-review-attenborough-unearths-a-botanical-horror-flick-pvrf70w8x https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2022/01/09/green-planet-review-dont-look-now-worlds-deadliest-flower/
- ALT2: ... that while filming The Green Planet, David Attenborough revisited a creosote bush he had filmed 40 years earlier for Living Planet, and found it had only grown a quarter of an inch since then? Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/attenborough-revisits-desert-bush-forty-years-on-in-the-green-planet-qh63sdd8z
- ALT3: ... that the camera technology used to capture the BBC documentary series The Green Planet was developed by a fan who had been inspired by the earlier BBC series Planet Earth? Source: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-long-take-film-green-22947683
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Paramount Hotel
- Comment: All of the hooks are a little different. ALT0 would be a good April Fools' hook, but the others are also pretty neat.
Created by Charred Pine Nuts (talk) and BuySomeApples (talk). Nominated by BuySomeApples (talk) at 21:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
Article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ is done. Both ALT1 and ALT2 are the hooks that stand out to me (I have a slight preference for ALT2 but I would not oppose ALT1 being promoted); both are cited to paywalled sources so I am assuming good faith for them. My only concerns is that for both ALT1 and ALT2 the relevant hook fact sentences are only partly cited; only certain parts of the hook facts have footnotes in the article, the references must be duplicated for each sentence per DYK guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review @Narutolovehinata5:! I'm a little slow today so please bear with me. ALT1 is quoted in "Reception" from Singh's and Midgley's reviews. ALT2 is cited in "Production", The Times article is paywalled but this is what it says: "Sir David Attenborough has re-visited a desert bush after 40 years, only to find the plant had grown just a quarter of an inch. The latest episode of the BBC’s The Green Planet sees the broadcaster, 95, reunited with the exact plant that he filmed in 1982 for his series Living Planet." The article previously had just the scientific name of the bush but I added the common name too so it matches the hook. Are there any other parts that have to be cited? BuySomeApples (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that both hooks are cited in the article. What I was talking about is that in both hooks, the facts are spread out across multiple sentences, only some of which have a footnote (i.e. if fact A is based on three separate sentences but only the last sentence has a footnote rather than all three). Per DYK guidelines, any sentence mentioning a hook fact needs to have a footnote even if the information is already cited elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh OK! Sorry, I moved the Times article so its cited at the end of both sentences in the paragraph. I don't see where any of the sentences related to ALT1 are uncited, but I might have been looking at it too long to notice. I just added a citation for Attenborough being the narrator to the lede (even though I don't think it counts). @Narutolovehinata5: Are there any other sentences that are missing footnotes? BuySomeApples (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oops! Mea culpa, this was actually my mistake. ALT1's sourcing is fine, it was ALT2 that needed hook duplication. In any case, given that the issues are now addressed, both ALT1 and ALT2 are approved with the final hook choice being left to the promoter.
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! BuySomeApples (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oops! Mea culpa, this was actually my mistake. ALT1's sourcing is fine, it was ALT2 that needed hook duplication. In any case, given that the issues are now addressed, both ALT1 and ALT2 are approved with the final hook choice being left to the promoter.
- Oh OK! Sorry, I moved the Times article so its cited at the end of both sentences in the paragraph. I don't see where any of the sentences related to ALT1 are uncited, but I might have been looking at it too long to notice. I just added a citation for Attenborough being the narrator to the lede (even though I don't think it counts). @Narutolovehinata5: Are there any other sentences that are missing footnotes? BuySomeApples (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I understand that both hooks are cited in the article. What I was talking about is that in both hooks, the facts are spread out across multiple sentences, only some of which have a footnote (i.e. if fact A is based on three separate sentences but only the last sentence has a footnote rather than all three). Per DYK guidelines, any sentence mentioning a hook fact needs to have a footnote even if the information is already cited elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
