Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Sharknado

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Sharknado edit

(
)

Created by JJL (talk), SL93 (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough and long enough. Hook is short enough and very hooky. The comment by the NWS rep was in jest, and the use of the term "sarcastically" effectively captures the point. Sourcing looks fine. No evidence of copyvio or other policy violations based on spot-checking. QPQ completed. Cbl62 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a potential WP:OR problem with the hook, in that it ascribes sarcasm to the NWS spokesman - a claim that isn't in the article or the source for the cited fact. It's also a little clunky in its repetition of the word "sharknado". I'd suggest an alternative as follows. Prioryman (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that the best way to prepare for a Sharknado, according to the National Weather Service, would be to stay indoors "whether sharks are raining down or not"?
    • It isn't original research because it was obviously not seriously meant. Your suggestion makes it seem that he was serious which will confuse the readers. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR may actually be a problem. SL93 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Ascribing intention is always problematic if it's unreferenced. The source writes that the NWS spokesman "humored me with his advice for sharknado readiness". That describes an action, not the intention behind the action. Did the spokesman do so sarcastically, joyfully, jokingly, angrily? The source doesn't say. The only thing we can reference reliably is that the spokesman said this, not why the spokesman said it. Actually, I don't think confusing the readers is necessarily a bad thing in this case - if we can get people to say "wait, what?" and click on the article, that's a good thing! An unexpected hook fact is great for attracting reader interest, in my experience. Prioryman (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright. The alt hook needs an independent reviewer. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to make it "according to the NWS," since this was just one person saying it, not the entire organization. My suggested alt hook below; it's factual, it makes you go "hmm," but it doesn't ascribe sarcasm. Girona7 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that in response to the film Sharknado, a National Weather Service representative commented on how to prepare for a tornado "whether sharks are raining down or not"?
Still clunky I'm afraid, and it gets the facts wrong - it was in response to the journalist's question, not the film! How about a hybrid with my suggestion? Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that the best way to prepare for a Sharknado, according to a National Weather Service representative, would be to stay indoors "whether sharks are raining down or not"?

I'm very pleased with this article. I expanded it to 1,849 characters and other editors, including IPs, helped raised it to 3,223 characters and everything added was reliably referenced. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The article's probably better than the film. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The article has been reviewed, but a hook approval is still needed. SL93 (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, in response to the film is grammatically correct. SL93 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is also how it is grammatically correct - A response (saying something) happened because of the film. That means that the response was because of the film, being "in response to the film". SL93 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously looks a silly film, but the content mostly looks OK; the sourcing looks OK but Uproxx and Buzzfeed stand out as the poorer sources. Are you sure they're reliable sources? I'd suggest ALT4 ... that the 2013 film Sharknado features sharks flying through the sky?

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

BuzzFeed was co-founded by Jonah Peretti, who also co-founded The Huffington Post. The editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed is Ben Smith of Politico. SL93 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Uproxx was founded by Jarret Myer. SL93 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggest ALT4. Article new enough, long enough, and adequately cited. Hook short enough, interesting enough, and also cited. Article appears to be neutral and free of copyright violations and plagiarism. Cheers!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder - If ALT4 is chosen, it will need to be verified by someone else. SL93 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As Dr. Blofeld cannot approve his own hook, that leaves both ALT3 (not specifically approved) and ALT4 (could not be approved) still unapproved, though the rest of the article appears to be. Looking for a reviewer who is able to approve both of them and will say which are ready for the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hooks ALT3 and ALT4 are both verified. I guess I prefer ALT3, but I suggest minor rewording that I think might improve its effectiveness as a hook:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sharknado&oldid=829257965"