Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/The Boy Behind the Door

< Template:Did you know nominations
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: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Boy Behind the Door

(
)
  • ... that The Boy Behind the Door was conceived by David Charbonier and Justin Powell after they had been repeatedly rejected by production companies citing budgetary concerns? Lemire, Christy (July 29, 2021). "The Boy Behind the Door". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved August 4, 2021.

Created/expanded by Throast (talk) and Filmomusico (talk). Nominated by Filmomusico (talk) at 18:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced and neutral. However, picked up a 61.9% similarity to this website. I do not see any timestamps to see when the website was published so I have no idea which website copied from which. I'll assume good faith, so I just need your confirmation that you (or another editor) did not copied from the website. The hooks are cited it article and interesting. However, ALT0 is less interesting than it could be as it seems to place emphasis on the location rather than the period of time which I find more interesting. I had to read ALT1 multiple times before I knew what it meant so you might have to alter it a bit. Nominator only has 2 prior nominations so no QPQ needed. Ping me in your replies! Pamzeis (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Pamzeis: I don't go to Persian websites, so you have my consent that I didn't copy paste from it. I also need to assume that creator of the article wasn't aware of it existence either. I also removed an uninteresting hook (as you suggested), and added a different one in ALT1 as well as altering the hook that you found to be of interest.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I got 7 notifications this morning so I must have gotten everything mixed up. I've tweaked ALT1. I'll AGF that you didn't copy from the website. Pamzeis (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. As I said earlier, I didn't even knew of this site's existence.--Filmomusico (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: The Persian website appears to have copied the lead and parts of the development section word for word, which I wrote. All of my contributions to the article were written by me. I just want to clear that up. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Returning to the nominations page for tag to be addressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: Please address the "Plot too long" tag so that this nomination can proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Whoever nominated this article can shorten the plot. As I haven't written the summary myself, it would probably take a lot of time for me to do it since large passages would have to be rewritten. I don't have the time on my hands to do that right now. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: The plot section was added by an IP. Do you want to address the issue, because if not, I will mark this for closure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: The ping did worked but thank you for heads up on my talkpage, those pings sometimes don't go through. You mean, do I want to include an IP as a contributor? If you will close it, does it mean that the article will be nominated?--Filmomusico (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I restored the plot to its original size, while the nomination is in process. Should I warn an IP about not editing the particular article because it might become a DYK?--Filmomusico (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: You are not really solving the issue at hand. Since you are the nominator of the article, the burden is on you to make sure the article is eligible. The current plot summary is still too long per WP:FILMPLOT. It simply needs to be rewritten. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Throast: I never saw the film. How would I know what to remove and what not?--Filmomusico (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
See my response on your talk page. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
In my view the plot section is still way too long. You could set the scene with the first couple of paragraphs and then summarise the rest in a few brief sentences, without all the detail. I have added the IP to the credits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Note: The maximum allowed hook length is 200 characters, but ALT1 is 239. It will have to be trimmed or replaced. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Any updates on the plot? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't plan on shortening the plot. But then again, I didn't nominate the article. As far as I'm concerned, this can be closed. Throast (talk | contribs) 11:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I have struck both hooks. The first hook is oddly phrased, the relevant sentence is not directly cited in the article, and the rogerebert.com article cited here after the hook does not mention anything that I can see about rejection by production companies. The second hook is too long. The plot template needs to be taken care of—by my count, the plot is 717 words and the maximum according to MOS:PLOTLENGTH is 700 words, so only a very minor reduction is required, though it should probably be significantly shorter, as Cwmhiraeth notes above: every setback doesn't need to be detailed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Since I wrote the "Development" section on the article, I feel like I need to correct you. The Roger Ebert source pertains to the first half-sentence, as the ref placement suggests. The info regarding the production companies is cited by the Forbes souce further below (Powell and/or Charbonier mention it in the transcluded interview; it also sources the following sentence, which is why it is placed further below). Throast (talk | contribs) 18:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: any updates on the plot (again)? As Throast does not plan to do anything about it and you are the nominator, you will have to shorten it to less than 700 words. If this is not done within the next week, we may have to reject this DYK nom. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: Somebody already shortened the plot on the 7th. It still have almost 3k characters, but I don't know which paragraphs should I remove in order for it to make sense to the reader. Obviously, the first and last sentence look good. I can try the middle. Did it to my best abilities.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, the plot's been sorted. Now, onto the hooks: both hooks are sourced to a Forbes contributor post, which is unreliable per RSP. Thus, we need an alternative or better source. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I found two alternate sources that mention the connection with The Goonies, though I'm not sure about their reliability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about their reliability too but looking through them, they both have contact pages ([1][2]) for, I presume, corrections, etc. I'm not really sure if they should be used for factual information and would recommend Filmomusico to ask at WP:RSN. Pamzeis (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Every website nowadays have a contact page - that's not news. I can ask, but I am 100% certain that those won't be considered as a reliable source. I'm shocked to learn that Forbes is no longer a reliable source, despite the fact that it's widely used as a backup source when it comes to economics.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: Interesting. According to this: "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors" makes Forbes a reliable source. I don't really understand how Forbes can be approved as a reliable source but Forbes.com is not, if, and I am 100% certain on this, that whatever is published by them in print is also available online.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Filmomusico: Forbes and Forbes Contributors are counted differently on the page you're quoting from. Forbes Staff is fine but Forbes Contributors isn't because it's not actually Forbes' writers and they don't really check it. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Forbes staff posts are reliable but Forbes contributors' post are not. If you have a look at the author line on the Forbes post, you'll see it says "Contributor"; those kind of posts have minimal editorial oversight and are considered unreliable. Pamzeis (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I asked a question. So far - nothing.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Five days later, we have no response. (that's potentially because you asked at WT:RSN and not WP:RSN.) If we have no more responses within the next two days, I would like to request you to include an alt. Pamzeis (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Filmomusico? Pamzeis (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: I asked at it's talkpage.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No, you're not meant to ask at RSN's talk page, but the actual page (which is what I linked). You'll either have to explain how these sources are reliable or provide (an) alternative(s). Also, please do not place your comments below the line which says "Place comments above this line". Pamzeis (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Jayron32 replied on that page and suggested that neither source is reliable. Looks like new sources and hooks will need to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Filmomusico: If you are unable to propose new hooks soon then unfortunately the nomination may need to be closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the nominator being unable to respond to the latest comments despite a ping, along with how it appears that the current hook fact is no longer usable due to sourcing issues, unless a new hook is proposed, it appears that there is no path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
That's why I didn't respond. There're no alternative hooks that I could think off (sigh).--Filmomusico (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Boy_Behind_the_Door&oldid=1048078028"