Template:Did you know nominations/All Eyez on Me (film)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 Jolly Ω Janner 05:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
All Eyez on Me (film)
- ... that in development since 2011, the Tupac Shakur (pictured) biopic All Eyez on Me has finally begun filming?
- Reviewed: Detlef Schrempf Foundation
Created by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 11:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC).
- Article is long enough, new enough, spot check does not show any copyvios (quite close to a couple of sources, but not so much that it's an issue), QPQ is fine. Hook is sourced, interesting and within length requirements. I'll put my opinions on CRYSTALBALL to one side and say, looks good to go.
WormTT(talk) 19:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Captain Assassin!: Sorry, but the hook doesn't seem like it's ready. Words like finally don't belong here. You should be specific as to when it started filming. Also, there is no picture provided and starting with "in development since" does not read well. Jolly Ω Janner 09:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good spot on the "pictured", that shouldn't be there. But I disagree with the rest - Reading the article, it's clear that there have been delays since 2011 and production has started in earnest only a couple of months ago, filming in December. I think that's absolutely reasonable to put "finally" in a hook, which can be more subjective than articles, to help with making them "interesting". However, what do you think of the following?
ALT: ... that despite being announced in 2011, the Tupac Shakur biopic All Eyez on Me only began filming in December 2015? WormTT(talk) 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good spot on the "pictured", that shouldn't be there. But I disagree with the rest - Reading the article, it's clear that there have been delays since 2011 and production has started in earnest only a couple of months ago, filming in December. I think that's absolutely reasonable to put "finally" in a hook, which can be more subjective than articles, to help with making them "interesting". However, what do you think of the following?
- Article is long enough, new enough, spot check does not show any copyvios (quite close to a couple of sources, but not so much that it's an issue), QPQ is fine. Hook is sourced, interesting and within length requirements. I'll put my opinions on CRYSTALBALL to one side and say, looks good to go.
- The alt seems good enough. igordebraga ≠ 05:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
