Talk:Ski-BASE jumping

outline style

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia . encyclopedia article s are written in paragraphs, like other prose -- list format, according to the WP:MOS is used only for things which can be expressed wll in paragraphs. Thiscan. I'm restoring the tag saying so. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the ski-BASE jump in the opening scene of the Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me was filmed only once due to weather and technical restrictions? Source: Telegraph

• Reviewed: Our Lady of the Forest Church, Forest Row
• Comment: Nominated at Snakey123's request

Moved to mainspace by Snakey123 (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 09:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Almost. Two of the Filmography bullet points need a citation; this shouldn't be too hard, they're cited elsewhere in the article.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Not that hooky. Lots of dramatic movie stunts are only filmed once. If I may be so bold, how about (alt 1) "... that ski-BASE jumping pioneer Shane McConkey died when he couldn't release his skis before deploying his chute?" Morbid, but quite dramatic, and goes along with the "dangerous sport" line in the article lead. Or some other; I'm not bound to this one, and the article is full of dramatic facts. For example, if you're set on the Bond movie, how about (alt 2) "... that the first ski-BASE jump was performed only four years before one was used in the opening scene in The Spy Who Loved Me?"

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Repeated uses of the same reference should be combined; see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations. GRuban (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, it's not me you should be contacting, it's @Snakey123:. I just nominated it for him as he asked me to. Personally I think the original hook is fine as the Bond element will bring people in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I contacted you both just in case, and suggested an alternative Bond hook, that will hopefully bring in even more people. . --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The reviewer is demanding a citation for facts that they have already seen have a citation elsewhere in the article. If I may say so, that is the height of pedantic pickiness. I am tired of reminding people that Wikipedia guidelines do not require that every sentence has a little blue number (although more and more editors are demanding it). Even the GA criteria don't require it. SpinningSpark 16:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The DYK criteria, however, explicitly require one inline citation per paragraph. Thus spake the template that we're recommended to use, Template:DYK checklist:

"|sourced = <!---Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?--->"

If you want to remind people, find either the author of this template or the person who added it to the "review a DYK page" and remind them. I don't make this stuff up, I just follow it. --GRuban (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Well to be pedantic myself, that is a template, not the actual rules, and a bulleted list item does not amount to a paragraph. There is no cite per paragraph requirement in the actual rules, and even the supplementary rules only describe it as a "rule of thumb" not an actual requirment, so you are free to use your judgement. SpinningSpark 18:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, don't do what they tell you, use your own judgment and do what I tell you? Lookit. It's been a month. The missing cites is only one of two issues with the nomination. Neither one of the original nominators care to fix either, so I suspect they will also not mind if someone else does. If you are interested in fixing them, I'll be all too glad to accept, and we'll have a fine DYK; fixing both issues will likely take less time and effort than that you have expended here. But otherwise, please stop disparaging my judgment as Paris said to Agamemnon.--GRuban (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Please don't misrepresent me with strawman arguments. If the rules say nothing on a subject, then yes, you are free to use your judgement, and the supplementary rules talk of a "rule of thumb" which implicitly means use judgement when applying. The template tells you to check the RoT, it does not tell you that an article must be failed because of it; it's just a reminder on a bullet list. And that's all without invoking WP:Ignore all rules which, as a policy that is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, trumps any DYK guideline. Tell me, how exactly do you think the encyclopaedia is being improved by rejecting an article for a verification issue that you have already determined is actually verified? See also, Wikipedia:Little blue number disease. SpinningSpark 11:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am the original author and I’m happy for it to be changed to the Shane Mcconkey death point! I think the original stunt point is definitely hooky enough but if people do not agree then perhaps it should be changed? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakey123 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That's great, Snakey! Thanks for writing back. So, here's what you need to do. I'll number the points for easy reference.

0: In general, not just here, when you're writing something from yourself, on a talk page or in a discussion like this one, ‎you want to sign and date your post, by adding four tildes, like this : ~~~~ I like to add a pair of dashes before them, but that's just me, many other people don't. The four tildes are definitely recommended.

1: Go to the article Filmography section, find the two bullet pointed paragraphs that don't have a citation, and add a citation to each that backs up what they say.

2: Pick the hook you want, I suggested two, but you can put the one you like in your own words or even another one, there are many possible one, write it here. Yes, I'm afraid I don't think "the stunt was only performed once" is sufficiently hooky, since plenty of stunts are only performed once; "only a few years after being performed ever it was used prominently in a major movie" seems much more rare.

2.5: Optional, but recommended: as described in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations, add a "name=" to your ref tags, and reuse the repeated ones, to make your "References" section much neater.

When you've done all that, say so, and I'll happily put a little green check mark, and this article will be in line to get its hook on the front page for a day. Thanks for your contribution! --GRuban (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if you're still trying to push this one out, @Snakey123:, but took the liberty of adding the "missing" citations to the original article. Dsty292 (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much everyone! I'm not really sure how to do any of that stuff. Is anyone able to do it for me? I'm new to all this wikipedia stuff :) 101.164.209.50 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm taking the previous review on good faith, except I have rerun Earwig as it was stated to be "playing up" last time, the missing citations have been added. That leaves the hook to deal with, for which I would like to suggest,
• ALT3 ...that during filming of the banned ski-BASE jump performed by Rick Sylvester in Yosemite Valley, the film crew were threatened with arrest but not caught afterwards?

SpinningSpark 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Spinningspark, what hooks are you approving? If it's only ALT3, then we need a new reviewer, because you can't approve your own hook. If it's any of the others, please specify which. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• The main hook has been objected to and ALT1 is too morbid for my taste. I could forgive that if it said something especially interesting, but it doesn't. ALT2 is ok, and ALT3 obviously, as I suggested it. I've now struck the first two. SpinningSpark 19:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• I will approve ALT3, then, only correcting the capitalization. Hopefully that doesn't make it "my" hook. --GRuban (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, GRuban. (Capitalization correction is not an issue, nor would a typo fix be, or punctuation change.) Copying ALT2 down here from earlier so it's easier to find by anyone wishing to promote this nomination; the two approved hooks are ALT2 and ALT3. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that the first ski-BASE jump was performed only four years before one was used in the opening scene in The Spy Who Loved Me?