Template:Did you know nominations/Grannies Gone Wild

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Grannies Gone Wild

Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 09:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ALT0 is cited to Inverse, which may or may not be reliable.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Pamzeis: Some questions are going to have to be cleared up here first, but we're chugging along! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, after searching past the stuff about the Inverse scientific/mathematical theory or whatever, I found this Observer piece and this THR article. They establish that Inverse has an editorial staff which I guess puts it at marginally reliable. However, the site is published Bustle Digital Group, which also publishes Bustle, a source with unclear reliability per RSP. RSP says that Bustle articles should be used with an instance-by-instance basis (I don't know what that means). So, per WP:SOURCE, Inverse is teetering between marginally reliable and no consensus. The site is used for a (in my opinion) not-very-controversial claim (They appear as ponies waiting in line for the Wild Blue Yonder) and opinion (Corey Plante, writing for Inverse, thought negatively of its lesson, saying, "In some ways, Friendship Is Magic can be even more fucked-up than Rick and Morty." ... Plante found it especially strange since Rick and Morty is "fucked up".)
Comic Book Resources, on the other hand, is widely regarded as a reliable source for comics, etc. (see discussions here and here) and has been cited by WaPo, Daily News, CNBC, Vox, etc.
Regarding notability, I believe it is established with CBR, Digital Spy and Screen Rant (marginally reliable is still reliable and per RSP, it is reliable for entertainment-related topics).
On COPYVIO, I think I found several complaints about this site violating copyright so I wouldn't put it past them to copy from Wikipedia as well.
ALT0 is a bit of Inverse's opinion, not factual information of any kind so I think it is usable since we aren't aiming for FA-quality sources. Pamzeis (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pamzeis: I'm not wild about either of those, honestly. To circle back to ALT1, is there a way we can emphasize just how unusual the cameo was, given the wildly different target audiences of the two shows? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 06:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. I've been contemplating on this. The only thing I can think that particularly highlights their contrasts is their characters—cuz, y'know, how FIM is about singing pastel ponies and Rick and Morty has a alcoholic sociopath. Maybe this...