Template:Did you know nominations/Envisioning Asia


 * 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator earlier today.

Envisioning Asia

 * ... that Envisioning Asia, a 2010 book authored by Jeanette Roan discusses the "on-location" shooting of Hollywood films in Asia? Source:
 * Reviewed: Saldi Isra

5x expanded by Skr15081997 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg x5 expanded, nominated on time, size ~ 2.2.k chars, no copy-vio detected, QPQ done. As for the hook, the line in the article doesn't mention 'Asia' at all. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * the hook fact has been added (with citation) in the lead section. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Lead usually requires no citation. It's better if you expand the hook in the body and source the same. AGF on offline hook. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * What is interesting about this hook? Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I agree with Gatoclass, and have struck the hook. Skr15081997, hooks must be interesting to readers, and this one just isn't. Are there any interesting facts in the article about the book or its contents? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, How about this:


 * ALT1: ... that in the 2010 book Envisioning Asia, the author "questions the very need and rationale for the authenticity that location shooting ostensibly allows and provides"? Source:
 * -- Skr15081997 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Before taking this one any further, I think the article needs a copyedit, it really doesn't explain the contents of the book very well at all IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Coyedited and added citations to every para. --Skr15081997 (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg IMO this article needs a lot more work to even qualify for Wikipedia. It is basically a book review, summarizing the book and citing the book as its main source. Only 16 percent of the article deals with critical reception, and the rest is content. The article presents every tidbit of information as "Roan discusses this" and "Roan discusses that". Who cares? What's the significance of the book? Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing this nomination. With 3 reviews the book meets the WP:NBOOKS criteria but the content section is nearly 80% of the article size. Not all new articles can be featured on the Main Page. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)