Template:Did you know nominations/Equus (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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Equus (film)
Source: Roger Ebert gave the film two and a half stars, arguing the realism in actual horses and their blinding, "strangely enough, get in the way of the play's own reality' Roger Ebert, "Equus," Rogerebert.com, 9 November 1977, URL accessed 23 October 2016.; Welsh also felt the explicit blinding was "potentially repulsive," and "much of the spirit of the play is lost as a consequence." Thomas L. Erskine and James M. Welsh, Video Versions: Film Adaptations of Plays on Video, Greenwood Press, 2000, p. 112. Source: Roger Ebert gave the film two and a half stars, arguing the realism in actual horses and their blinding, "strangely enough, get in the way of the play's own reality' Roger Ebert, "Equus," Rogerebert.com, 9 November 1977, URL accessed 23 October 2016.; In stage productions, the horses are portrayed by human actors, often muscular men wearing tribal-style masks. Richard Harland Smith, "Equus (1977)," Turner Classic Movies, URL accessed 24 October 2016.
 * ... that a few critics felt a more realistic portrayal of violence and horses in the 1977 film Equus lost some of the spirit—‌and even the realism—‌of the play?
 * ALT1:... that the 1977 film Equus featured real horses rather than the masked men seen in the original play, but Roger Ebert said this was less realistic?
 * Reviewed: Guapi-Guapiaçu Environmental Protection Area

5x expanded by Ribbet32 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC).   Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
 * &#x2713; This article has been expanded from 1132 chars to 6864 chars since 13:15, 03 September 2016 (UTC), a 6.06-fold expansion
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 6864 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2717; This article has the following issues:
 * from June 2016
 * ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 29.1% confidence. (confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * No overall issues detected
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 154 characters
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 141 characters
 * &#x2713; Ribbet32 has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 0 more DYKs.
 * In ALT0, it should be "the realism", not "the reality". In ALT1, it should be "less realistic", not "less real". Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with those adjustments. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hooks are set. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

but if you really like the other hooks, I prefer ALT1. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New enough/long enough (5x expanded from the bot's calculation). There was one part that seemed kind of like close paraphrasing, and I changed a word to make it less similar to its source. Article appears neutral (I didn't check offline sources), QPQ done, no pictures with the nomination. I don't understand exactly what the EngvarB template is referring to--I didn't see any inconsistent regional spellings. I'm not sure if the "reality of the play" and "the play's realism" are interchangeable; I understand that it sounds "hookier" to use a contradiction, but I prefer something more straightforward. I suggest
 * ALT2:... that the violent horse-blinding scene in Equus detracted from the film’s psychological themes, according to some critics?
 * Thank you Rachel Helps (BYU), is "ALT3:... that several critics felt more realistic depictions of horses and violence in the 1977 film version of Equus detracted from the spirit of the play?" a viable compromise? Ribbet32 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Yes, that sounds good. I still think "realistic depictions of horses" is a little unclear, but "use of live horses and realistic violence" isn't any shorter. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)