Template:Did you know nominations/A Million Ways to Die in the West

A Million Ways to Die in the West

 * ... that the upcoming comedy western film A Million Ways to Die in the West will be released on May 30, 2014?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Corinne Mentzelopoulos
 * Comment: Nominated for deletion, but nomination has been withdrawn and the AfD will soon be closed.

Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk), Captain Assassin! (talk), Pseudonymous Rex (talk), and Koala15 (talk). Nominated by Bonkers The Clown (talk) at 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Hook is not at all interesting. Article not reviewed. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You aren't going to fully mark out this article just because it's not interesting? At least give a "?" review! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not conducting the review, but might I suggest: Alt1: ... that A Million Ways to Die in the West is a Seth MacFarlane film about a sheep farmer due for release in 2014? Miyagawa (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good... I was looking for something interesting. Cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Still no. Another thing. DYK says, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." I don't count its-releasing-in-real-world as actual involvement. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The film is real... Anyway. Using Alt 1... Is Seth MacFarlane not from the "real world"? Is the 2014 release not a "real world" occurrence? The focus is on the film as a real world thing and its release... And not much on its plot elements... ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ... that American comedienne Sarah Silverman has been cast as a prostitute in the 2014 film A Million Ways to Die in the West?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2 is good and interesting. Nice. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't find any of it interesting. Film releases on DMY, films plot is blah blah, ABC is acting in film. Promotion of such hooks is a reason why many editors feel that DYK is a nonsense section on the main page. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Then dear sir, would be so kind as to suggest your own interesting hook? That would be appreciated a lot. Currently, Blofeld's Alt 2 reads as interesting enough to me. Thanks, --☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not every article has DYK material. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 16:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's whether you are able to appreciate and see the interesting factor in the article. Who's to define what's interesting and what's not anyway. Who's to say whether the fried mongoose tastes nice or it tastes horrid. It's up to individual perspective. So there. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You may request for another reviewer if you wish to. For me the whole article has nothing interesting in it. Also the article (exclusing lead) doesnt have long enough prose. And those baby sentences of ABC joined film on DMY and PQR joined on DMY are horrible. But Wikipedia work by consensus and if someone finds it interesting, who am i to stop? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, the tile itself is interesting enough. Well, whattya expect... It hasn't even been released that's the best we can do. So... Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Second pair of ears, please. Cheers, --☯  Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 13:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, the tile itself is interesting enough. Well, whattya expect... It hasn't even been released that's the best we can do. So... Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Second pair of ears, please. Cheers, --☯  Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 13:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article has 1471 prose characters, short of the minimum 1500, and it only achieves that with a great deal of padding in the Production section; each milestone is written up in the same way: "on [date], it was announced that [star] had joined the film." About 200 characters could be saved by combining these. The original hook violates WP:CRYSTAL, ALT1 is a dull repetition of facts, and ALT2 is not supported by the inline source citation, which says Silverman is interested in the part, not that she's been cast. (The source used is a tertiary one, reporting on what Hollywood Reporter said. The actual HR story is the one that should be cited, though what is really needed is a story that reports on Silverman being cast in the role.) The nomination was made in a timely fashion, but given the length and prose issues, I haven't bothered to do a close paraphrase check. The article, as it stands, is not up to DYK standards; I also disagree with Bonkers' assertion that the title alone is interesting enough. If there isn't anything interesting enough about the article to make a good hook, then why does it belong on DYK? Dharmadhyaksha make a good point: sometimes there isn't information of sufficient interest for an article to be worth nominating; I've seen it in a number of articles, including my own. This appears to be yet another such article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg It's been six days without action, and Bonkers has been quite active in the interim. I see no reason to keep this nomination open any longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)