Template:Did you know nominations/Shopping for Fangs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The nomination still has no valid hooks, the nominator hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two weeks or the article for over a month, and checking the article myself, I find I agree with Cwmhiraeth's assessment that the quality is not up to DYK standards.

DYK toolbox

Shopping for Fangs[edit]

(
)

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self nominated at 04:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

  • 21 days is a fairly standard filming period for independent and small-scale films, so not a great hook fact IMO. How about this alt...
  • That works. SL93 (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that of Shopping for Fangs (filmed for less than US$10,000) a reviewer wrote that the actors managed to do rather nicely, "under the circumstances"? EEng (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The article misquotes the source which actually states that the budget was under $100,000, not $10,000, so ALT1 and ALT2 are out and the article should be changed. With regard to the original hook, the source states that shooting was scheduled to take 21 days, so that hook is not acceptable either (it may have taken longer). The plot summary is pretty feeble and could be improved using the Holmlund source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I will fix the article and hook. However, the plot section is fine for DYK requirements. The source that you mentioned only has a few sentences of the plot. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Alt3 won't do because it is not clear whether Phil is a werewolf or not. How about
Another reviewer will be needed to approve the Alt4 hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Full review needed now that a hook has been settled on. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The source does not support the contention that Phil is "sexually-confused". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • SL93, Cwmhiraeth, ALT4 is apparently not supported either. A new hook that is supported needs to be proposed, and soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel no particular obligation to further review this nomination of a low quality article, particularly as the nominator has not taken up my suggestion that the feeble plot summary could easily be improved. I would also point out that the article is only 1581 B and part of that is quotations which make it too short for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The nomination still has no valid hooks, the nominator hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two weeks or the article for over a month, and checking the article myself, I find I agree with Cwmhiraeth's assessment that the quality is not up to DYK standards. Closing as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shopping_for_Fangs&oldid=808395110"