Template:Did you know nominations/The Racketeer (novel)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Template:Did you know nominations
(more)
information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC).

The Racketeer (novel)

(
)

Denzel Washington

  • Reviewed: 1st of 3 QPQs against
    WP:FOUR
    ) 23:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

5x expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 05:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC).

  • While expansion, including plot, is needed, I think amount of information is decent enough to pass this nomination. Not to mention well-reliable references and interesting hook. However, the image is not used in the article. Even if included, I don't think the hook would be strong enough as a lead for one set. Also, adding the image would make the article look bad, considering the prose size. Nevertheless, the image issue would be resolved by not using the image besides adding it, making the issue a minor thing. If the QPQ is added, this nomination would be set to go. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I realized that expansion between 13th and 16th is not a fivefold. Also, IP user 139.94.79.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added prose on 13 February 2013. To qualify as fivefold, I've moved the nomination to the 13th, giving another user some credit. --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It is unclear to me why this was moved from the 16th to the 13th. 5x expansion began on the 13th, but it could continue until the 18th and still be eligible, meaning that it could even be nominated on the 18th. At least, that is the way I thought it worked.--
    WP:FOUR
    ) 19:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the QPQ is added, and image issue should be resolved in no time by either not using it at all or adding it in article fast. If crediting an IP user is not needed, that's fine for me. --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • George, I'm very sorry, but you should never approve an nomination with issues outstanding. There is no rush: wait until they have been attended to. At the moment, the nomination contains an image that is not included in the article, which violates DYK rules, and the article is rated as a stub, also not allowed. DYKcheck says this is a valid 5x expansion and over 1500 characters. However, the article remains a bit stublike, with undue detail on a week-by-week bestseller list performance, a single review which doesn't even say what the reviewer thought about the quality of the book and its writing, and a section on the film adaptation which seems to give it undue weight compared to the existing book, and has odd and probably unnecessary sentences like "They are pursuing a writer to do a screen adaptation of the novel" (probable translation: "we don't have a writer yet, but are looking for one", rather than "we have an eye on a particular writer and are pursuing him but we're not giving out the details at the present time"). I think the article needs more work before it's ready to be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Image added to article.--
      WP:FOUR
      ) 19:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I have rerated the book as class=start.--
      WP:FOUR
      ) 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article has been expanded significantly since the initial approval and subsequent hold. New review needed to see whether the issues mentioned above have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • While the article certainly passes the 5x expansion mark and is no longer a stub, I don't think the hook or article really reflects what the source is saying. While CBS This Morning interview segment with John Grisham makes it appear more like a dream casting wish and says that no one has even heard from Denzel Washington or his agents, the hook makes it seem almost like a done deal. Even the article's phrasing of Washington being "under serious consideration" doesn't seem right when, again, the source makes it seem like Washington's name is just being tossed out as a "really great idea/fan favorite pick" way versus serious talks being done between Washington's agent and the production studio, etc. I would encourage the editor to rework the article text/hook to more accurately reflect the "wishful nature" of Washington being involved or consider an alt hook. AgneCheese/Wine 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The source says "Now Denzel Washington is being bandied about to play the lead in the film adaptation". I don't think much more of a change is needed other than adding the word possible.--
WP:FOUR
) 17:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"Bandied about" is still just jargon for supposition and "Geez wouldn't it be awesome if we got Big NameSoAndSo to star?". A separate google search for "The Racketeer" "Denzel Washington" "John Grisham" shows no actual linking of Denzel Washington to the film beyond being in a previous film directed by Daniel Espinosa and the singular CBS "bandied about" line which, again, doesn't have any substantiation or indication that it is anymore than Washington being on a "wishlist". It would seem to me that phrasing describing a "possible star" or one who is "under serious consideration" (as the article still states) would be one who has moved beyond "wishful thinking" to having at least reports of the actor's agents being contacted by the studio which, so far, none of the available reliable sources indicate. I think rather than go for a hyper speculative and somewhat misleading hook, the CBS interview source could be better served for a hook about Grisham creating the character of Malcolm Bannister in response to fans' request for an African-American protagonist. AgneCheese/Wine 18:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it more accurate now?--
WP:FOUR
) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I still think that we're trying to pull a mountain of a hook out of a mole hill of hype. I edited the article to make the Denzel section more accurately reflect the source's speculation/wishful thinking nature and I also added a background section with material that I feel offers better hook potential. Since I'm now involved we'll have to request another reviewer. AgneCheese/Wine 20:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(ALT1)... that
WP:FOUR
) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(ALT2)... that
WP:FOUR
) 19:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Bowing out of this review as I've edited the article quite a bit and added material to allow for another potential hook. Another reviewer is needed. AgneCheese/Wine 20:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(ALT3) ... that at the encouragement of fans John Grisham wrote his 2012 novel, The Racketeer to feature an African-American protagonist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agne27 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It makes almost no sense to me to use any hook that does not mention Washington, since the purpose of DYK is to attract viewers. If his image appears on the main page with the hook, this could easily get 10-20,000 page views just because of his popularity and face recognition.--
WP:FOUR
) 21:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If another reviewer wants to pass the Denzel hooks, that's up to them but I still think they're rather superfluous. While I agree that having his picture/mention in the hook would add to the page views, that still doesn't discount the fact that the whole extent of Washington's involvement in the book/film adaptation looks to be based on nothing more than people tossing random "Wouldn't it be great if we got this guy?" out in the air. To be completely honest, I really don't even think that's worth being mentioned in the article in the first place. AgneCheese/Wine 22:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to view Washington as a much more far-fetched possibility than the media [1] [2].--
WP:FOUR
) 23:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Um, the first link is just repeating the CBS interview about Washington being a "fan favorite" for the role and your second link is essentially a fan saying they would like to see Denzel Washington in the part. They both kind of prove my point that there is no real tangible connection between Denzel Washington and this film project outside of wishful/hopeful thinking. AgneCheese/Wine 01:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine to have Denzel here, but we need to make it explicit that he's nowhere near a certainty. How about
  • ALT4 ... that John Grisham hopes Denzel Washington (pictured) will star in the screen adaptation of his novel, The Racketeer?
Also, Tony, check your grammar. Many of the sentences need some touch ups. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There appears to have been some ce from multiple editors -- Esemono (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see a copyedit, I see an IP who added an unreferenced section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Took out the unreferenced section added by IP while maintained the ce I did earlier. -- Esemono (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The ALT4 hook line about Grisham hoping that Washington will be in the adaptation is not currently in the article so that will need tweaked if that hook is approved. Though, truth be told, the CBS source doesn't even have the hoping part either, rather just Grisham comment on other people telling him that "'We got to get Denzel.'". AgneCheese/Wine 05:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • How is it now?--
    WP:FOUR
    ) 06:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The text in the article is more inline with Alt4 but I still think it is taking liberties above what the source is actually saying. Even searching today on Google there is really no concrete source, whatsoever, actually linking Denzel Washington to the film adaption so I still believe it is a bit misleading to build a hook around ideal speculation and wishful thinking. But again, if someone wants to approve any of the Denzel hooks (or the non-Denzel Alt3) they are more than welcome to. AgneCheese/Wine 20:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:FOUR
    ) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think ALT3 is more interesting and, other than having a picture (which always attracts extra visitors), see no reason why ALT4 would attract more hits. I am going to suggest promotion of a more direct version of this hook (ALT5), but also approve #4 and leave it to the promoter to make the final call. Finally, I remind Tony to AGF - I seriously doubt there is a conspiracy against your hooks. When you write as many articles as you do, a few nominations are bound to run into difficulties. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    ALT5 ... that, on the encouragement of fans,
    African-American
    protagonist?
    • Are you trying to convince me that you don't understand how popular
      WP:FOUR
      ) 03:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:FOUR
    ) 03:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have undone
    WP:FOUR
    ) 03:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't even know what the hell you are talking about, but way to assume bad faith yet again, geez. Also, I am well aware of who Denzel Washington is, and no his picture would not automatically create billions of hits like you seem to think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Are you new to DYK or something. A hook with Denzel Washington will surely get 5K hits if not many more. Without Washington, we are talking about a 1000-2000 hit hook.--
          WP:FOUR
          ) 04:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I see now you are referring to me editing out a bunch of wordiness. No meaning was changed and there was no hidden motive. There is no conspiracy against you; drop the paranoia and
        OWNership attempts. --ThaddeusB (talk
        ) 04:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The edits you have made have eliminated the encyclopedic content that clearly states Grisham hopes Washington will play the role. Please do not edit the article unless you are able to do so without removing that encyclopedic content. Your attempt to initiate a reversion war by pretending not to understand this point is transparent.---
        WP:FOUR
        ) 04:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The only thing that is blatant is that you are incapable of being civil. The quote itself completely conveys that Grisham hopes Washington will play the role. There is no need state it twice; additionally the sentence was rather awkward as worded, but hey if you want to edit war to keep your poor grammar in the article, be my guest. On the basis of your very bad attitude and repeated assumptions of bad faith, I hope this article is never posted. Your work does not deserve to be featured if you are going to act like this. I withdraw my prior support for posting and now !vote to reject on this basis. (P.S. if you had just been civil, I probably would have agreed that ALT6 was the best choice.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
          • So if I restore the encyclopedic content that you are trying to hide, you oppose the article going on the main page? Since you were unsuccessful with getting a 3R this is how you respond with a crybaby reject? Every time I have an African American who will get a lot of hits in a hook, you DYK folks do every game in the book to keep it from being on the main page. You AFDed Barack Obama and now you are at it with Denzel Washington. Why are you so insistent that popular black personalities not be pictured on the main page when I nominate them. Do you not understand that a hook with Denzel Washington would get a high number of hits? Do you not understand that the purpose of DYK is to have subject that will draw readers.--
            WP:FOUR
            ) 04:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Add calling people racists to your list of offensive behavior... The purpose of DYK is to "publicize new or expanded articles" and "reward editors for their contributions" not to try to maximize hits and certainly not to reward the inappropriate behavior of editors who insist on getting their way. As to your continued assumptions of bad faith (and blatantly false insults, I might add), I think I've made my point clear enough already. P.S. All "X on Twitter" articles were AfD'ed, not just Obama's. --ThaddeusB (talk)
              • They all got AfDed after most of them were on the main page, but before Obama's was.--
                WP:FOUR
                ) 07:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Are you still going to pretend that a hook without Denzel would do as well as a hook with Denzel?--
WP:FOUR
) 08:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Its not really relevant, but I'll answer anyway... I do not think a famous actor maybe getting a movie role is a very interesting hook, but it would generate some hits from Washington fans. A famous author picking the skin color of his character based on the request of fans is a bit more interesting to the general population, but wouldn't get the fanboy clicks. If I had to guess, I would say alt4 run without a pic would get similar hits to alt5; alt6, which mention both facts, would probably do a bit better than either. The inclusion of the picture would obviously increase hits, as is always true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In truth, the hook is not about a famous actor getting a role but rather about the most popular author in his genre expressing a hope that the most popular/famous African American actor would play a role (in this case one written for an African American). My point is that a famous actor and Denzel Washington are two different animals. He is a lionized celebrity at the pinnacle of fame. Famous the way you use it is a mere step above notable. Also, it has been my experience that naming popular celebrities in hooks has gotten me very high page views (
WP:FOUR
) 14:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Are you going to continue assuming that anyone who disagree with you is acting in bad faith and has a hidden agenda and/or is a liar and/or is a racist? --ThaddeusB (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You have yet to lie about any objective fact, so your actions are fairly distinguishable from lying. A lie would be something like you always submit terrible hooks that waste the time of DYK and should be banned from DYK, when my hooks are approved at an above average rate, which I believe to be the case. In terms of being racist, I don't believe that it is true that National anthems are suddenly not that encyclopedic or that it is a coincidence that my most promising DYK hooks about popular Afican Americans (Obama and Washington) are poopooed.--
WP:FOUR
) 14:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • How about avoiding the problem that the CBS source doesn't say "hope" and instead:
  • ALT7 ... that John Grisham's friends in Hollywood all said they "got to get Denzel" (pictured) to star in the screen adaptation of his novel, The Racketeer?

or

  • ALT8 ... that John Grisham's contacts in Hollywood all said they "got to get Denzel" (pictured) to star in the screen adaptation of his novel, The Racketeer?
is backed up a CBS story: Grisham said, "We sent the book to a dozen of our favorite people in Hollywood and there's some great folks out there we met over the years and everybody says that, 'We got to get Denzel.' -- Esemono (talk) Esemono (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I have expanded the "got to get Denzel" quote to the article to make this hook viable. I like ALT8.--
      WP:FOUR
      ) 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I do find the "conspiracy theory" claim odd since this article could have been approved and featured a long time ago with Alt3 and later Alt5 (which ThaddeusB gave the approval tick for though he somewhat took back those approvals after the editwar with Tony on the page) but this nom has only been held back for so long because of Tony's absolute insistence on his preferred hook. I understand wanting to get a picture slot but even if one of the Denzel hooks are approved there is no guarantee that the promoter would even use the picture anyways. I also understand the desire to write the best hook to get the most page view though, for me, that understanding ends when it comes to using somewhat misleading hooks about trivial details on days outside of April's Fools.
    I will say that the last two Denzel Alts are far less misleading and don't take as much liberties with the source as the other Denzel hooks have. However, I still find the idle speculation of an actor with no actual attachment whatsoever to a film project outside of wishful "Hey wouldn't it be great if we get this guy?" thinking to be a trivial matter hardly worth even being mentioned in the article much less featured as the main point of a hook. AgneCheese/Wine 16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not have "absolute insistence on his preferred hook". I have insistence on a hook including Washington's name. I certainly would approve ALT6, ALT7 or ALT8. DYK hooks are known for being misleading regarding the substance of an article. There is no policy that the hook need to be related to the primary topic of an article. In this case, DYK has the special opportunity to get a lot of page views by leveraging the popularity of Washington. I find it hard to believe that people considering pictures for the main page could find so many lead hooks likely to do a better job at the intended purpose of DYK (drawing viewers to new content) that an article presenting this opportunity should be wasted as a secondary hook. What we are interested in is getting readers to read this new article. Regardless of whether Washington's connection to the topic is somewhat minor/tangential/remote. Any Washington hook will draw thousands of viewers to new content. End of story.--
    WP:FOUR
    ) 23:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agne27, forgive me, but using the approval tick as an example causes an article from this date to show up as approved in the big table at the head of the
    T:DYK/Q pages: I've changed your use of the icon to "approval tick" to prevent that from happening until we have an actual active approval. (There's a bot that looks through all the templates to see whether the final icon is an approval or not to make up that table...) BlueMoonset (talk
    ) 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry BlueMoonset, I didn't realize that it would mess up any bot codes. I just wanted to convey to any objective reviewer that comes by ALTS3 & ALT5 (which I think is better IMO) were previously approved and are still eligible. AgneCheese/Wine 15:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem, Agne27. We all learn about the ins and outs of DYK—like the bot workings—when something like this comes up. Also, I'm not entirely sure ALT3 or

ALT5 are actually approved: ALT3 because ThaddeusB seems to have withdrawn his approval, and ALT5 because it was a ThaddeusB proposal and no one else has approved it. At the moment, nothing seems to be approved. I've struck the original hook due to your objections, but we have eight ALTs, none of which have been given the okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Here are some tidbits presenting why we should have a celebrity in the hook based on my prior DYK experience.

Prior Grisham DYK experience [3], [4]. My DYK experience with celebrity hooks shows quite a bit more success

WP:FOUR
) 04:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I just approved ALT 6. The article meets the criteria for DYK, as does the hook. To me the interesting thing is that this is Grisham's 30th novel and first with an African-American protagonist. Including Denzel Washington as part of the hook is OK and may draw more clicks (but possibly casting him in a movie based on the novel is a pretty minor point in the article and should not be the only thing in the hook). In the interests of full disclosure, I was asked by Tony to take a look at this DYK nom and did so. I used to be pretty active in DYK. I know from past experience that many more articles are nominated with pictures than can run (since only one picture is included per set of DYKs). I am fine with Tony suggesting a picture of Denzel Washington be included with the DYK, but think it is up to the person making the DYK set whether they include this as the pictured DYK or not (and as I already said, Denzel Washington has a pretty minor / tangential connection to the subject). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes running a picture as a judgement call. I am saying that with a picture, this could be a 10K hit article quite easily. See my examples above. Both Beyonce and Kate Upton were lead hooks. Without leveraging the celebrity, we are probably going to be in the 5-10K range based on my other examples above. Just guessing, but using Washington's link gets us 3 or 4 thousand pageviews and his picture could get us another 5K. There are just not that many hooks that have a strong chance to get DYK 10K pageviews. Denzel has a very good chance to bring 10K hits.--
WP:FOUR
) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Racketeer_(novel)&oldid=1052055835"