Template:Did you know nominations/The Sky Is Pink

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: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Sky Is Pink

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Krish! (talk). Self-nominated at 07:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

  • While the full review could probably be left to someone else, I wonder if alternate hooks could be proposed because I'm not sure if the hook would appeal to non-Bollywood audiences or those unfamiliar with Chopra (I understand that this hook will probably appeal to the Indian subcontinent, but Wikipedia is an international website and we're writing not just for Indians). Perhaps a hook about how the song used for promoting the film wasn't actually used in the final cut might work better? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
As the nominator hasn't been on-Wiki in over a week and the hook concerns remain addressed, perhaps CAPTAIN MEDUSA might be able to help out with this nomination and take care of any concerns in their absence? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally it's rather pedestrian; it would have worked better if Chopra was better-known globally. Perhaps another editor can chime in here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for intruding on the discussion. I agree that neither of the two proposed hooks are particularly eye-catching. The story about how the subject's mother only wanted Shonali Bose to direct her daughter's story because the daughter loved the trailer for Bose's film Margarita with a Straw is interesting, but I cannot think of a way to condense it down to a hook. The film's basic plot (i.e. about a couple navigating their marriage while also dealing with their daughter's severe combined immunodeficiency and pulmonary fibrosis) could have potential. Just wanted to propose two different ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
As interesting as a hook about the plot would be, it wouldn't be allowed as hooks about plots aren't allowed unless they are somehow linked to the real world. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Apologies for the mistake on my part. Just trying to think of some ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposing three hook options. Apologies for intruding yet again. I think I might as well try to format some hook ideas. I am honestly quite bad at this because I never can get a grasp on what is considered "hooky" or not. Apologies for being super annoying here, and I greatly appreciate @Narutolovehinata5: for their help. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
ALT1ALT2 sounds good. And don't worry, additional hook proposals are always appreciated. ALT1 is actually quite good, far more attention grabbing than ALT2ALT3 or ALT3ALT4. Just hoping that the nominator will return soon and provide some feedback on your hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I prefer ALT1ALT2 as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to do the review and I am surprised by how much outright copying there is in this GA article. I removed the close paraphrasing taken from Outlook India, but more needs to be done. See Earwig's comparison from Indian Express, Scroll.in, The Hindu, . Obviously, everyday expressions are fine to repeat, but when you use her flowery language as your text, it needs to be in quotes. Yoninah (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It is very troubling to me that the article was listed as a GA given the significant close paraphrasing, which also includes the hindustantimes.com source (number 7). While I think it's too soon now, once the text is revised, I plan to ask an expert to check to be sure there aren't any lingering copyvio or close paraphrasing problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
So the original editor who opposed my hook said "Wikipedia is an international website and outside India, nobody knows Priyanka Chopra". BUT then how come the hook about Shonali Bose (who is unknown even in India) was approved? Plus Bose was attracted to the film due to various reasons, not just because of her own tragedy. She said she wanted to explore her own experience while writing, yes WRITING not CHOOSING the film. So your hook is contradictory. Just because nobody knows Chopra outside, doesn't make her less important. I have written a dozen of DYKs about Chopra so are you telling me that all those should be removed because she's unknown outside her own country?Krish | Talk To Me 12:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Krish!: I think the problem with the original hook is that it is simply a statement of fact. If someone knows who the actress is, they'll click on anything about her, but saying that it's her first film in three years is not going to appeal to anyone who doesn't know her, or even to anyone who is into film and knows that this is a common experience among actors. (I'm still waiting for Bradley Cooper to release another movie after two years!) The Bose hook, on the other hand, adds an additional dimension that extends beyond filmmaking; readers can relate to someone's emotion over her son's death. Remember, when writing hooks, we're not trying to summarize the article, but to "hook" readers into clicking and reading more. Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Then I would recommend a hook which is more interesting: Aditi wanted only Bose to makea film on her daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish! (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If a suitably-worded hook based on that is proposed, it could be approved depending on how it's written, but the decision would still rest with the reviewer(s) and promoter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the original hook is that if you don't know who Chopra is nor follow Bollywood, learning that this was her first Hindu-language film is not going to be very appealing because you wouldn't know the context and circumstances behind it, thus preventing appreciation of the information. It's like writing a hook about a Filipino actor doing a Filipino-language film for the first time in five years. It might appeal to Filipino readers, but it won't necessarily be interesting to readers from somewhere like Estonia or Nigeria. The hook focusing on Chopra is not itself the issue and in fact it's possible to write a hook mentioning Chopra while still appealing to an international audience (the one proposed above mentioning her marriage to Nick Jonas, a name that might be more familiar to global readers, is an example) it's all about the hook fact and the choice of words. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand both sides of this argument that has developed, but Narutolovehinata5 is right that ALT0 might be too boring for some parts of the audience. However, the idea of a Chopra hook is solid if done right. Also BlueMoonset, while a bit off topic, this was just my third GA review, and I am certainly looking for pointers on how to improve those. Raymie (t • c) 18:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that Priyanka Chopra planned her wedding in between filming scenes for The Sky Is Pink? [1]
ALT5a: ... that Priyanka Chopra planned her wedding to Nick Jonas in between filming scenes for The Sky Is Pink?
ALT5b: ... that in between filming her scenes for The Sky Is Pink, Priyanka Chopra was planning her wedding to Nick Jonas?
I think this will be more effective if Nick Jonas is specifically mentioned; it's another association and chance to draw people in. (I do think that more people know Chopra since her marriage to Jonas, but it helps to give them a specific referent.) ALT5b is offered in case it seems desirable to have the film's name earlier in the hook. But a non-Chopra hook can also work. —BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Priyanka Chopra is more popular than her husband. Before she started dating Jonas, nobody in India knew who Nick Jonas was. Jonas is no Ed Sheeran whose song "Shape of You" was a rage in India and world. Chopra introduced him to a larger audience and she has 4x more following on social media than her so called popular husband that you guys think whose name might help Chopra get some clicks. Chopra enjoys popularity in UAE, Arabia, the middle east, South east Asia and off course Asia and wherever Bollywood is followed just like most of Bollywood stars. Saying Chopra needs her husband's name to get more clicks is laughable. After her TV show, Chopra became known in US, UK too and became more known in Europe and other parts (she was known there for her Bollywood films). DYKs on Bollywood actor's names have been getting clicks forever on Wikipedia.Krish | Talk To Me 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the above comment, there are two issues right now with the article and the nomination. The first is that even if what you're saying about Chopra's fame compared to Jonas is true, there is consensus among others editors here that the original hook that focuses on Chopra (ALT0) is unsuitable, so even if you wish that a hook mentioning her be used, a different wording (which may or may not mention Jonas) would need to be proposed. The second, and perhaps more pressing issue, is that as mentioned above by Yoninah and BlueMoonset, there are several statements in the article that may be too close to other sources and may need to be rephrased. Also pinging other previous commenters @CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Aoba47, and Raymie: for their thoughts on the new comment regarding Chopra, as well as JavaHurricane who may have some ideas on how tto move forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies for my late response. The close paraphrasing issue is the most important part to handle, but I will leave that to more experienced editors. As for the hook, I see nothing wrong with putting both Chopra and Jonas in the hook as it would only increase the possibility that someone may find it interesting enough to click on. Celebrity popularity is a tricky thing. I can believe that Chopra is more famous in India (and other parts of the world) than Jonas, but I would imagine Jonas is more popular in the US due to his association with the Jonas Brothers band. Either way, if Chopra must be mentioned in the hook, then I think the Chopra/Jonas wedding one may be the better option, especially since the wedding was all over the press at the time. Apologies for the long response. Aoba47 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5 I was the original reviewer, so I need to stay out of this one. I've been looking for help with GA reviews because of what's happened with this particular article, but unfortunately I haven't received much assistance. Raymie (t • c) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, I have been in touch with someone who might be able to do a GA reassessment (I can't at this time), but frankly, given that there is copyvio currently in the article that nominator Krish! still hasn't addressed (or made any edits at all to the article), this may end up getting closed regardless of whether there is a GA reassessment or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset Where is close paraphrasing in the article? Some of the big quotes were rephrased during its GA nomination so I don't think it requires a GAR. Also, I don't care if Chopra is known to US or not, I support my first hook and the reviewer's job is to review it and not lecture me about the popularity of the actress. Going by this logic, the new Indian actors, who are not even that known in India, are not eligible for DYK?Krish | Talk To Me 00:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue isn't about Chopra being the subject of the hook or her fame outside of India, it's about the hook fact, how it is worded, and how it can appeal to the broadest audience possible. Her making a Hindi film might interest her fans or people who know her, but it may be more niche outside these two audiences. On the other hand, preparing for a wedding while filming is something that might attract interest even to those who don't know her; the mention of Jonas would only be to add additional context and bring in more eyes. In theory it should be a win-win for the hook: English-speaking readers who may be more familiar with Jonas would be attracted, but so would readers from India and neighboring countries where Chopra is more famous. Finally, as for the "new Indian actors cannot be on DYK because they're not famous" comment, that misses the point. It's certainly possible for obscure-in-India personalities to be featured on DYK provided that a hook that would interest general audiences could be proposed. Indeed, one of the alternate proposals here was the hook about the director, which some editors here liked even though you mentioned that she isn't well-known in India. To repeat what I mentioned earlier: it's all about the hook fact and a wording. When writing a hook, you need to keep in mind that you're writing something that needs to catch the attention of people who don't know anything about the subject, which can be a challenge even for seasoned DYK veterans.
It should be noted that there is already consensus among many editors here against the original hook, a consensus that is unlikely to be overturned at the moment, so we either have to go with any of the other options already proposed here, or make a new hook that would find agreement here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Raymie So you reviewed this article without any critical analysis and now want it to be reassessed? How about you shouldn't have taken this article in first place if you don't know how to review articles?Krish | Talk To Me 00:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah and Narutolovehinata5 The point you raised above on 22 June (sorry for not looking at it earlier; I've been very busy) about "flowery" language used without quotes, is because this reviewer demanded that I must remove all quotes and paraphrase it and only then it will pass. So I did and hence youare finding close paraphrasingin Development and Themes section. That's not my fault but the "reviewer's" incompetence. I can be fixed without reassessment.Krish | Talk To Me 00:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue here is that the article was nominated for DYK as a recently-promoted GA, and now that GA status has been put into question. A GAR can help ensure that the article does indeed meet the GA criteria, because if issues remain or new ones are found and they aren't addressed within a reasonable timeframe, the article could be delisted and the nomination would automatically be failed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Krish!, I pointed to the the hindustantimes.com source as one that was copied/closely paraphrased in my post earlier; Yoninah pointed to other sources, and did some fixing on her own. However, I am troubled by your failure to accept responsibility for your own copying and very close paraphrasing. There were a lot of quotes, and the reviewer appears to me to be justified in asking that you put more of this material in your own words. What you seem to have done instead is to reuse the quoted words in a slightly different order, which is inadequate, and the reviewer didn't pick up on this. You may wish to consider whether any of this should be called "incompetence", or if the word should be used at all here. It certainly left me with a bad taste in my mouth. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The reviewer agreed above that this was only his third GAN and now wants to learn from it. I myself have reviewed several articles and I go deep with each section but this reviewer just asked to see the quotes paraphrased and I did. A GAN reviewer is supposed to raise the concerns of close paraphrasing at GAN which he did not yet here I am getting the blame of it. How is it fair? And also, perhaps you are right, I did not mean incompetence of the reviewer but inexperience. I should have used the word inexperienced. Krish | Talk To Me 01:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes and the GAN reviewer has apologized for it. What now needs to be done is that the parts in question need to be revised so that the paraphrasing issue can be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm also left with a bad taste just from reading this thread. @Krish!: for all your experience, have you ever read WP:AGF? Or for that matter, WP:OWN? Yoninah (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think regardless of the history of the nomination, if we resolve the close paraphrasing, we'll be in the place that the article can retain the GA status and the status of this nomination. I can take a look at fixing the article, but it might take a couple days. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Lee Vilenski: I've made a series of edits to clean-up these issues. The earwig check is currently this: there are still high percentages, from sourcing with a lot of direct quotations. Perhaps this could be discussed. I read the article, and some phrasing could be improved, images shrunk down, but there's nothing I can see needing immediate attention/GA review. About the hook, for what it's worth, I thought Chopra was quite well known internationally before marrying Nick Jonas (and the original hook would have been interesting to people from other places with large Bollywood markets like the UK), if not the US. @Raymie: First, thank you for your email. If you want some suggestions with GAN reviewing, feel free to ask me! Kingsif (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I've gone in and taken care of the Hindustani Times issues that I noted (and had been highlighted in part by Earwig back when I checked it). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For clarity, right now the only hooks that have support are ALT2 and ALT5a/ALT5b (I've struck ALT5 as consensus here appears to be that the wedding angle can't be used without Jonas being mentioned). The nomination has been open since May and a review has yet to be done. @Yoninah: As some of the most pressing paraphrasing concerns have been addressed, can this be given a full review now? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Full review: Nominated within 7 days of receiving GA. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Images in article are fair use and freely licensed. QPQ done. Both ALT2 and ALT5/5a are verified and cited inline; ALT5/5a obviously has much more hook appeal, so that gets my vote. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually no QPQ has been provided yet. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Sky_Is_Pink&oldid=1025666346"