Template:Did you know nominations/1 (2013 film)


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

1 (2013 film)

 * ... that 1 is a documentary film about Formula One auto racing's progression from multiple fatalities per season to the 1994 death of Ayrton Senna, the sport's most recent death?

5x expanded by Gilke001 (talk) 7&amp;6=thirteen. Nominated by TonyTheTiger (talk) at 04:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC).


 * The "multiple fatalities per season" is not supported by the citations given (And please change the wording in the article from "heyday" as this has positive overtones) Belle (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg There are a few "citation needed" tags to clear up. And most of the article is (unsourced) plot summary. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Movie plots are generally unsourced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. But 80% of this article is the plot summary. We had this discussion on one of your previous film nominations. Perhaps you have more production detail to beef up the article? Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not really the main editor for this article, especially the uncited countent that you mention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I'll ping the page creator. Yoninah (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (ALT1) ... that 1 is a documentary film about Formula One auto racing's progression from seasons with multiple fatalities to the 1994 death of Ayrton Senna, the sport's most recent death?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/EarthBound, fandom, fan translation, Marcus Lindblom (1st of 4 QPQs)


 * Yoninah, where does this stand now? Is it ready for further review, or do issues still remain. (I've just removed the stub template from the article.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Seventy-six percent of the page is unsourced plot summary. There is one sourced paragraph of Critical Reception, and no production notes. I really don't think this is DYK-worthy. Yoninah (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll dig up some more content and to change that percentage.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the text, but note that WP:FILMPLOT says Plots need not be sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Perhaps another reviewer could look at this. I personally think all the Critical Reception is padding and that the article is still imbalanced with too much plot summary. Yoninah (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Padding is a bit harsh. This is a documentary film. I added what i could. Since the DVD is available I WP:AGF that my colleague summarized the film. Recall that WP:FILMPLOT says Plots need not be sourced. The plot is a fullsized article level of detail and the rest of the article is a start class level of detail. However, I think that means we should hope that the rest of the article expands at some point in the future and not that the plot be shrunk.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I started a section on production notes. It would be nice to say something about the soundtrack, but I couldn't find anything specific. Yoninah (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the hook could be hookier, but there's not much that's sourced to work with in the article. How about:
 * ALT2: ... that 1 tracks the history of Formula One racing fatalities through archival footage and interviews with F1 champions such as Jackie Stewart, Jacky Ickx, and Michael Schumacher? Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is it hookier to say a documentary film interviewed a lot of people?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I thought racing buffs might connect to the names. I just wish the original hook were tighter/snappier. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I referred to [] to refresh my memory of the sport. As can be seen there, at least 14 F1 drivers died at the wheel in the first 8 years of F1 (1952-1959); by comparison, only 4 died during the 1980s, with the two dying in 1982 being the only multiple-fatality year. That makes the factual basis of the film suspect. Including a factual howler in this article also undermines its veracity; I am referring to the simpleminded assertion that to go twice as fast, you merely have to double the engine size from 1.5 liters to 3 liters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 September 2014‎ (UTC)
 * This review is not a place for you to be pointing out inaccuracies of the film. You can go blog somewhere about that. Furthermore, List of fatal Formula One accidents is not a WP:RS. The article currently points to an RS that states 19 death occured in a 16 year period. By simple logic, there were multiple years with multiple fatalities. What do you think is suspect about the film that none of the film reviewers have found (since by viewing a wikipedia page you now know more than all the people who have reviewed the film)? I have no idea whether doubling the horsepower approximately doubles the speed. If the film and secondary sources of the film say that happened we are suppose to summarize that. Recall WP:TRUTH.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What a spirited defense for including false information in an encyclopedia!
 * If any of your sources for this article insist that doubling the horsepower will make a car go twice as fast, they are totally ignorant of physics. And my reference to a WP list as a memory aid is scarcely a claim that it is a reliable source. However, if the film contains controversial or false information, shouldn't it be noted in the article?Georgejdorner (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't fight WP:TRUTH with WP:OR. You have to present sources that the factual claims are incorrect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But is it required to supply sources for as basic a fact as "Water runs downhill"? Or is this statement also OR? The dubious "fact" above is in the same category of basic common knowledge. And just why is the defense of a blatantly inaccurate fact so important in this case? I think we should be interested in scrupulous accuracy in an encyclopedia instead of highlighting bogus information.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In light of the above inaccuracies, I have my doubts that this article is DYK material. I did not go on to check such items as length, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 September 2014‎ (UTC)
 * FYI, the "dubious fact" about horse power and top speed was removed long ago from the article. The current iteration is: "In 1966, the FIA doubled the engine size from 1.5 to 3 litres, which saw the cars race markedly faster on tracks and facilities unchanged since before World War II."  So what's wrong with that?  WP:Dead horse would seem to apply to this argument. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Regarding length. This article was nominated on July 30. Prior to July 30, this version was 300 characters. On July 30, the article was expanded until this version was 5262 characters. Length is not an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Article length was never an issue to me; see above. The hostility of the nominator, including his personal attack that amounts to bad faith, however, makes it clear that my reviewing is unwelcome.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Article length was an issue when you posted this edit here. That is what I responded to. I have not made any WP:NPA on you. Your comments are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you will carefully reread the referenced comment, you will find I did not actually check for acceptable length.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I've done a major copy edit, rewrite which I think could break this logjam. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As to the hook, I think that there is an unintended visual issue. The way it is worded the documentary film 1 would be better noticed than simply 1.  I think a lot of readers will just blow past (overlook, just like you did) the single digit, and will wind up looking at the Formula 1 article. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to do full review after the just-completed rewrite. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg haven't done a full review yet, but here are some initial quibbles (I have tried to keep an open mind by not reading the previous discussion, so pardon me if I'm bringing something up that has already been discussed):
 * 1 What kinds of websites are blu-ray.com and DVDReleaseDates.com? What makes them reliable?
 * 2 T he article states that "The interviews were conducted in 2010 and 2011", yet the source cited for this statement merely claims that "the bulk of the interviews completed in 2010 and 2011", while "work on the picture started in 2008".
 * 3 The sentence "The Independent described the film as if it were produced alongside Rush" is rather vague. Was it or wasn't it? --Carabinieri (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 Here is the answer to the first half of this question, which is from their website:

"Blu-ray Blu-ray (pronounced Blue ray) is what Blu-ray .com is all about. Blu-ray movies, Blu-ray players, Blu-ray reviews and news, you'll find everything right here. We offer thousands of Blu-ray movies and Blu-ray reviews, Blu-ray release announcements and news, Blu-ray release dates, hot Blu-ray deals, forums and more. We're also busy expanding our coverage of 3D movies, 3D Blu-ray and home theater. For more information about Blu-ray (not Blue ray, Blu-Ray, or Blu-ray DVD), the official successor to DVD. see What is Blu-ray? or the Blu-ray FAQ." It would appear to be a commercial website dedicated blu-ray information. As to how WP:RS it is, I don't know any more than that. 7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 Fixed "Interviews were completed in 2010 and 2011." ````
 * 3 Fixed. It was made alongside Rush.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 4 If you're not confident, those sources are reliable, I don't think they should be used.
 * 5 I feel like the way the "Critical reception" section jumps between various reviews is slightly confusing. The sentence "The portrayal of the roles of Ecclestone and Mosley were lauded for their "genuine determination"[1] as "self-styled guardian angels"." is ungrammatical. Who or what was lauded exactly?
 * I think the sentence is now grammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6 The article could generally benefit from a little more copyediting. Also the way that sentence presents views from two different sources as one view doesn't make sense to me.
 * I won't address the general copyedit issue in regards to a DYK nomination, which is a bit over the top, IMO, but I did attempt to make it seem like the two views are not necessarily one view.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 7 Is the information in the notes in the summary taken from the movie? If not, it needs to be sourced. --Carabinieri (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 7 Fixed.The notes section was just a move from the original plot summary, and had the same source, which I presume was the movie. These were moved for clarity, as the summary tried to cover "too many notes."  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My assistance was requested here. What are the outstanding issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The things I listed except for the last one.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the text to match the source regarding the timing of the interviews.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Although there is no policy as such and the sources would not generally be described as WP:RS, it is my belief that GAC and FAC both allow DVD release dates to be sourced to commercial websites such as these without prejudice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have struck out all issues that have been addressed.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Since it looks like a new reviewer might be desired to move things forward, I've cast myself into the lion's mouth and taken a look at the article as it now stands. New enough when it was proposed; long enough; not a self-nomination, so no QPQ required; lots of good work done by nominator and others to improve the original draft and meet concerns. I think all of the outstanding concerns that were raised have been met except possibly the phrase "It was made alongside Rush". That's all the ref'd article says: since the cited authors don't elaborate on what they meant there's not much scope to improve that. I cleaned up a sentence or two that seemed confusing. That leaves the hook fact: I found the original confusing to read, and a valid concern was raised about overlooking '1' as the name of the main article, so I'd like to propose an alt: Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * *(ALT3) ... that .... 1: Life On The Limit documents the history of Formula One racing fatalities from its early years, with sometimes multiple fatalities, to the 1994 death of Ayrton Senna.