Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/The Haunting (1963 film)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Crisco 1492 (re) |
imported>Lexein (resp) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:*[[File:Symbol redirect vote4.png|16px]] Full review needed. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | :*[[File:Symbol redirect vote4.png|16px]] Full review needed. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 04:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
::*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] Quick comment: several references are unformatted or poorly formatted, some parts (Rotten Tomatoes, physical effects) are uncited. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | ::*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] Quick comment: several references are unformatted or poorly formatted, some parts (Rotten Tomatoes, physical effects) are uncited. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::*Actually, refs were ok (verifiable): ref formatting should not block DYKs. The {{tl|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). --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 21:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 21:31, 21 October 2012
The Haunting (1963 film)
- ... 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 react to?
- Reviewed: Song 4 Mutya (Out of Control)
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)
- 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)
- 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).
-
- 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)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 21 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)