Template:Did you know nominations/Two (1964 film)

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Two (1964 film)

(

)

... that Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray made a short film Two (1964) without any dialogue as a tribute to the silent film genre, which also makes "a strong anti-war statement"?

Reviewed: Tadeo Jones

5x expanded by Vivvt (talk). Self nom at 04:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This article's prose section was expanded from Jan 1 to Jan 2 (UTC) from 459 chars to about 4299 chars, a more than 9-fold expansion, so it is long enough and new enough. Every paragraph has at least 1 inline citation except for the credits (which is not prose) and the synopsis, and according to MOS:FILM#Plot, the plot synopsis does not need inline citations because the presumption is citation to the work itself (the film). Article is neutral. Half a dozen spot checks (Googling sentences) show no copyvios. QPQ is good. The hook is interesting and an appropriate length. The anti-war quote in the hook is well-sourced in the article to the Mitra reference, although perhaps this ref should also be appended directly after the quote itself, too. However, the hook fact seems slightly different than what is in the article or the sourcing of the article, namely: Whereas it seems to me the external reference here states without clear attribution to a source other than itself that the film was a "tribute to the genre [of the silent film]", and the article also makes this statement also without clear attribution (i.e., separated by commas), the hook seems to clearly attribute the interpretation of a "tribute" to Ray himself. It seems to me we need a less ambiguous source for a hook fact.
Other problems in article itself: The image in the infobox is slightly more than 400 pixels on a side, and should perhaps be reduced to 400 or less. Article lede should perhaps be restructured per WP:LEDE to ensure it reflect whole body (e.g., what about Restoration and In Media sections?), although I believe this latter issue is style rather than policy and thus not an obstacle to DYK promotion. Another minor and hopefully easily addressable issue, not in my view an obstacle to DYK promotion, is that in a few places the grammar seems not 100% perfect, although still very comprehensible.
Overall, except for these fixable issues, this is an interesting and nicely written article - good job! --Presearch (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your wonderfully detailed review. I have reduced the image and uploaded the low resolution image. Also, restructured the article per WP:LEDE. I agree with "tribute" issue pointed out here and would like to suggest another hook. Article can then be corrected accordingly.

ALT1: ... that Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray paid tribute to the silent film genre through his short film Two (1964), made without any dialogue, which also makes "a strong anti-war statement"? - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to go. I still see minor grammar irregularities, but I just checked all the DYK rules I could find, and none of them said that's an obstacle (for example in para 2 of the lede, sentence 1 should say "through the rich kid's window"). While it'd be good if the grammar is eventually fixed, an ironic upside of running the hook while the grammar is still imperfect is a possible recruitment function: A reader who finds the article from a DYK hook on the main page, who is irritated by grammatical imperfections, might thereby start editing Wikipedia to correct them. There could be ironic costs to being overly perfectionistic about DYK articles (as opposed to featured articles, which are meant to be very high quality). --Presearch (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)