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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Flick

[edit]
(
)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 00:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

  • The point Nikkimaria makes is as much a WP:FAIRUSE one as pointing out the excessive use of long quotes: some quotes represent significant proportions of the cited works is against fair use guidelines that govern all Wikipedia articles: "acceptable use" is "brief quotations", and what appears in the article is hardly that. The article needs to be far less reliant on quotes. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand and respect your point.
Please understand mine.
However, when one is addressing the nuanced opinions of professional theatre critics, an extended quote may be quire reasonable so as to properly catch the tenor and flavor of a complicated review. Reducing these down to simple movie poster phrases— e.g., 'a thrill a minute' or '2 thumbs up' — may be unintentionally misleading for our readers. It has to do with the message, the subject matter, and the available content. Any a priori rule is inherently suspect in that regard, as this is inherently a factual and fact specific determination. And reasonable minds could therefore differ as to what is "fair use" for a particular review and a particular play.
This article was created by a highly experienced Wikipedian, and he made his good faith judgment.
What you are doing here is creating and enforcing a rule without prior notice of its scope or of the consequences. This is just an ex post facto disagreement, and it surely could be subject to both reasoned debate and informed correction if necessary. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Since it is Nikkimaria who pointed out the issue, it would make sense to wait for her to comment on whether the problem she raised has been addressed. As she has, in my experience, a much better sense of fair use and overquoting, I didn't feel that it was appropriate for me to preempt her. I'll ping her on her talk page in case she missed the pings here. The last thing we want is for this to have to be pulled from the prep area again if the concerns remain. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur. I was not trying to be preemptive. Still we need an opinion — Nikkimaria's opinion — in due course. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The New York quote in particular is still too long - nearly 20% of the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Baker has a real knack for capturing the halting, self-conscious vernacular of cerebral yet underachieving twenty-something suburbanites... Over the course of three hours, the three misfits blunder in and out of each other's isolated bubbles, making contact in any way they can to alleviate the oppressive drudgery of their tasks... Baker's restraint is admirable, and when "something big" does "happen," it carries the kind of weight that probably won't translate if I simply describe the play's biggest plot point.

Is the bolded part, which seems like a plot summary to me, too complicated for wikipedia editors to write in original wording without quoting? I don't get it. And by using (...), the lead sentence of 3 different paragraphs - out of 6 - are combined in the quote. If I'd written the review in the Gothamist, who isn't even named by the way, I'd feel ripped off. Plus the whole "Critical response" section is made up almost entirely of quotes. So really, the whole section is a bunch of linked quotes, with only the following contributed by wikipedia editors:
  • Charles Isherwood, reviewing for The New York Times wrote:
  • The reviewer for Gothamist wrote:
  • In a Playbill article, Robert Simonson noted that despite its irksome (10 word quote) to some viewers the show was a splendid theatrical experience for serious theatregoers that provided (13 word quote)
  • Jesse Green, in his review for New York, wrote:
Is this what is called wikipedia article writing?
And even the "Overview" section contains a quote. Hardly any of the article was actually written by wikipedia editors seems to me. See what the Copyvio Detector has to say about the quote from the Gothamist:[1] (It accuses the Gothamist of possible copyvio of wikipedia) Parabolooidal (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I took a meat axe to it. While it should (I think) allay the fears, it may have made the article too short. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There may have been a meat axe chopping away, but Parabolooidal's points about the Critical response section's structure remain unchanged: there is no paraphrasing of the reviews at all, when the bulk of the section should be paraphrased. I couldn't help but note that the bolded sentence pointed out above is still intact. It really shouldn't be; after the point made about the Gothamist quotes having been made so strongly, a fix should have been attempted. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The idea that the solitary cut and frankly substandard paraphrase would address the issues raised so far and be "sufficient" for DYK is mindboggling. I said "the bulk of the section should be paraphrased" and I meant just that. The whole Critical reception section is problematic, including its first sentence: "One source opines that the aggregate crticics' rating was a 'B+'.", is wrong on several levels, including factually. I'm closing this nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blue and Nikki; the prose needs massaging. Direct quotes still make up almost half the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to paraphrase three more quotes. I am not sure if this really improves the article, but it seems to be what you want.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New enough (for 16 April), and long enough. Hook checks out with online citation #2. No problem with disambigs. I think the proportion of quoted material is OK now, and all clearly cited. External links all OK, except citation #4 is a dead link which needs to be deleted and/or replaced. When you have resolved the problem of citation #4, the nomination will be good to go. --Storye book (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Tony the Tiger, all issues now resolved. I have struck the original hook. Good to go, with ALT1. --Storye book (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Category