Template:Did you know nominations/RMS Titanic in popular culture

RMS Titanic in popular culture

 * ... that commemorations of the RMS Titanic in popular culture have included songs, poems, plays, musicals, films, books and even black teddy bears?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Slavery in Poland
 * Comment: Expanded something like 25x (!). Please do *not* hold for the Titanic centenary weekend, as it will be linked from the Featured Article box on that day. Please instead run it as soon as possible before that date.

Created/expanded by Prioryman (talk). Self nom at 23:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try and do this later. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hook: Interesting, short enough, cited.
 * Article: New enough, long enough based on pre-expansion version (an old version seems to have been much longer but since trimmed). Those fair-use posters should be trimmed, as they seem like decoration and do not have FURs. The text in the last paragraph of #Themes is unencyclopedic in style. Check for use of language ("burden of white people"? not encyclopedic. I'm worried this may have close paraphrasing issues due to the writing style, but cannot access the offline sources.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Major text and image issues Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I've removed the fair-use posters and reworded the last paragraph of #Themes. The "burden of white people" line reflects the original source. (Without close paraphrasing, I might add - the original says "when the white folks go under". "White folks" is too colloquial for my liking, so I didn't use that wording.) Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Burden of white people" comes across as POV, as a burden is essentially something that is heavy and useless. A couple phrasings like this need to be checked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that's the whole point - it's the old ship of fools allegory. I've reworded it, anyway, but it would help if you could identify the "couple phrasings like this" that you are concerned about. You're being a bit vague about what exactly it is that you don't like about this article, which doesn't help when it comes to resolving issues. Please be specific. Prioryman (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As one should understand NPOV. Here's another couple: "great ship", "radically different", "A concrete (or perhaps icy)" (not encyclopedic to have puns in the article). Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded this too. Prioryman (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't wait for me to do everything for you, try and neutralise the wording. "extraordinary variety of ways"? According to whom? "almost feverish level of public interest"? Not encyclopedic wording. "An alternative view sees the Titanic as somewhere between a Greek and an Elizabethan tragedy" - According to whom? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try it now - I've made those and many other changes... Prioryman (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still a bit of editorialising. I've already cut "ironically" and "unfortunately" from the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made yet more changes, but you know, I'm getting the feeling that you're not going to pass this whatever changes I make. Am I wrong? Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made yet more changes, but you know, I'm getting the feeling that you're not going to pass this whatever changes I make. Am I wrong? Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Wrong. POV seems to be at an acceptable level, although not entirely eliminated. AGF on offline sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)