Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Haunting (1963 film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 11:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Haunting (1963 film)

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that to enhance their performances, a "prescored" soundtrack of violent noises and voices was played during the filming of the 1963 film The Haunting to give the actors something to which to react?

Created/expanded by Tim1965 (talk). Self nom at 04:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Once this has passed DYK checks, perhaps it can be listed for the Halloween DYKs. - Tim1965 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Bolded article name in hook. Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (2596 days) (was 3658[1], needs to be 18290[2]) Popular culture section is not sourced. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Correction(?): it's currently[3] 16254 prose size per prosesizebytes.js --Lexein (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Correction: I meant the article needs to be at a character count of 18290 (fixed comment). -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
At [4], 2036 chars to go. The plot section is only 915 chars: per MOS:FILM it could be 400-700 words (2000 - 3500 chars). Also, resolve those {{citation needed}}s. resolved sufficiently. --Lexein (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Now meets 5x expansion size, at 18708. --Lexein (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that neither the plot section nor the cast list should be counted when estimating five-fold expansion. I'm unclear as to where in DYK rules it says that there can't still be problems (even citation problems) with this article. The DYK fact-hook is properly cited. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There's no "plot exception" that I could find in WP:Did you know or WP:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines; this was discussed in WT:Did_you_know#Plots. Plots don't need to be cited, per MOS:FILM. The ProseSize tools automatically exclude all lists and include all non-HTML and non-wikitext prose.
There was no need to trim the cast list by my lights, but, as you wish.
I did not insist on plot expansion, just noted that it was a ripe opportunity for expansion. I greatly appreciate the expansion work on the rest of the article first.
In the rules, there is: "Articles with good references and citations are preferred." Also, it's in the reviewing guidelines whenever this Talk is opened for editing: "cites sources with inline citations". Sorta seems sporting to take a stab at resolving citations needed, or removing the unsourced claims. There's only one now, so not a show stopper. The reviewer may disagree.
Why split discussion, forcing two reply locations? Geez. --Lexein (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There are no more missing citations, and the character count is 20058. (I used MS Word for that.) It's over the 18290 needed. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, even though it met 5X expansion (link) yesterday. Count now is really 20011, per ProseSize, suggested in DYK instructions. --Lexein (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: several references are unformatted or poorly formatted, some parts (Rotten Tomatoes, physical effects) are uncited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, refs were ok (verifiable): ref formatting should not block DYKs. The {{linkrot}} tag was not on: no links were bare. As a matter of style, some refs were linked as a blob, rather than just the title, and many periods were placed inside quotes and italics; all now fixed. Many refs lacked convenience links; now added. The effects paragraphs are cited as groups of paraphrase sentences, and are satisfactorily cited. Rotten Tomatoes need not be (and IMHO should not be) cited as a reference for cause, but it's in External links, for those who care (I do not). --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify, contra Lexein a reference will be required for the Rotten Tomatoes paragraph per the DYK rule Crisco cites, which is not optional. (Alternatively, the Rotten Tomatoes paragraph can be dispensed with. Either is valid, but one must be done.) Once the issue is fixed, I'll put another red arrow up in the hopes of catching a new reviewer, though a Halloween presentation looks doubtful at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I removed the Rotten Tomatoes reference some days ago. (I never understood why an aggregator site was a reliable reference anyway.) - Tim1965 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Article is a five-fold expansion and was new enough when nominated. The above-mentioned issues seem to have been resolved. The hook fact is accepted in good faith. I improved the hook grammatically. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Haunting_(1963_film)&oldid=880999269"