Template:Did you know nominations/The Writing's on the Wall (OK Go song)

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Writing's on the Wall (OK Go song)

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that OK Go's one-shot video for their song "The Writing's on the Wall" took 65 takes to get all the optical illusions performed correctly?~~
ALT1 ... that OK Go used over 60 takes to make sure all the optical illusions were filmed correctly during a continuous shot for the video to their song "The Writing's on the Wall"?

Reviewed: Count Campau
Comment: DYK fact source [1]

Created by Masem (talk). Self nominated at 16:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

Article is new enough, long enough, and very well referenced. No close paraphrasing from sources. I changed the hook from 50 to 65 as this is the number used in the article, and is supported by the source cited in the article, rather than the one provided above. QPQ is done so good to go. (Side note: also a super cool music video.) 97198 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The article says that 65 attempts were made for a one-shot take, of which 18 were complete takes, and the take that was used came from midway through the under nine hours of filming. This doesn't at all match the claim in the hook, that it took 65 takes to get everything performed correctly, so I've struck it. The two sources disagree on the number of take attempts—CBS says 61, Washington Post says 65, so "over 60" may be the way to go—and CBS gives the successful take as "thirty-something". BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reworked to clear up the # of takes. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Initial review by 97198 still stands, taking it on trust - I have only checked the hook. ALT checks out with online citation #11, which also has the video link (yeah, I liked it too - thanks, Masem!). Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I came to promote this to a queue, but the hook fact cited in the article is confusing. It says "about 65 takes", but that sentence is sourced to CBS News which clearly says "61 takes". Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Three different reliable sources - all quoting the band - have produced 3 different numbers (see BlueMoonset's comment above, also add that Rolling Stone said "50"). As such, I have chosen by suggestion to stay vague on the number; it appears around 65 give or take some takes, but fear to make it more exact given the lack of collaborating numbers from the band themselves. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand. So put all three sources at the end of the sentence "around 60 takes". Yoninah (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)