Template:Did you know nominations/Rod Steiger on screen and stage


 * 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 Allen3 talk 11:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Rod Steiger on screen and stage

 * ... that Oklahoma! (1955), a film starring Rod Steiger (pictured), had a crew of 325 people and some 70 trucks?


 * Reviewed: Ruđina Balšić

5x expanded by FrB.TG (talk), MarnetteD (talk) and Ssven2 (talk) Nominated by FrB.TG (talk) at 11:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC).


 * I would like to make an alternate suggestion to this. While I would be happy to see this on the main page the hook seems to be more about Oklahoma then about RS and his excellent performance as Jud. An alternative might be DYK


 * ALT1: ... that Rod Steiger starred (pictured) as Marty in the TV production "Marty" two years before the film starring Ernest Borgnine?


 * I have been fortunate enough to see the TV version and Steiger's performance is wonderful. He brings nuance and subtlety that the film misses - I do like the film as well though. The fact that this is done in 40 minutes (approx) less time then the film is amazing. Now I have never made a comment or nomination here so if there are formatting problems or if I have done anything that is inappropriate please forgive me. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , please check your citation for Klondike Fever. Thompson & Randall has nothing in the Bibliography to point to. I really like the ALT1 hook by .— Maile  (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing that. I have added the missing book. --  Frankie  talk 12:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, - More comments - I was getting ready to do a full review.  But I'm guessing this is being readied for eventual FLC.  I'm leaving the final review to someone else.
 * I'm adding Ssven2 and MarnetteD to this nomination, for their substantial contributions since this list was created on July 22, 2015.
 * Article created July 22, 2015, but as of August 31, the "readable prose" was only one sentence. That would be the technicality claimed of 5X expanded.
 * The sentence in the lead "Between 1948 and 1953, he featured in 250 live television productions within five years" is appropriately sourced to the Guardian, but neither that publication nor this list back up that claim. I have found nothing at imdb.com, BFI.org.uk, or anyplace else that shows anything more than a fraction of that. In fact, imdb.com lists 147 of films and television combined. Your table has only 17 television productions.
 * Good luck with this nomination. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding them. As much as I'd love to add them, the fivefold expansion counts only for prose. And they've not contributed to the expansion of prose but sourcing the table. I really don't understand what do you mean by "as of August 31, the "readable prose" was only one sentence". As for the claim, The Guardian quotes During a formidable career that encompassed the New York stage, some 250 live television dramas within five year. Also, DYK criteria comment nothing on comprehensiveness of an article. --  Frankie talk 14:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "as of August 31, the "readable prose" was only one sentence" is a reference point qualifier. Whether it's a new article, or expanded, it has to be within 7 days of the nomination.  It isn't new because it was created on July 23.  For it to be qualified as 5X expansion as you set up the nomination, it's only the readable prose that qualifies for the expansion.  That one sentence was 107 characters (0 words) "readable prose size". September 1 is the date you began expansion on the prose.  That's all - it's a reference date and prose size as the qualifier. — Maile  (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments . I have a question though. This last post seems to be about the article in general rather than about the DYK. So I am wondering if these should be moved to the talk page for the article with a different section header. If not no worries. As I said above I am not used to how things work in a DYK. The expansion to the opening is down to and  and many thanks and kudos to them both for their work. The statement about the number of TV performances seemed a little large to me as well (it also contains a little bit of a Dept of Redundancy Dept comment) but I had not taken the time to check on it. I will try and add to the TV section but it is a holiday weekend here and I may not have the time to do much until next week. Thanks again. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops - after reading your post I realize that you have done all the bulk of the work on the opening - apologies for my error. The thanks and kudos still apply to you both for any and all of your work on the article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'll get this right one day :-) The work is much appreciated in any event. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , The thought has occurred to me that maybe the Guardian made a typo and meant "25" instead of "250", but it's unprovable. Given the kind of nitpicking that can happen here on DYK, it's probably not good to have such a discrepancy in the article, even if it's not part of the hook. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it didn't make a typo. It's totally correct; here are many other sources. Also, can we discuss the article keeping the DYK rules in mind instead of talking about it in general? --  Frankie talk 16:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg . I've done over 300 DYK reviews, I think I know how the process works. I was trying to help you.  But you obviously find that an irritant.  Complete review needed by someone else.  — Maile  (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I were rude. Anyways, thanks for your time and help. --  Frankie talk 17:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , - Don't worry about it.  Misunderstandings happen all the time, both directions.  Me as much as you.— Maile  (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Review
 * I see the 250 figure has been removed, and I'll offer an apology as well. I could have handled this a lot better than I did.


 * QPQ had been taken care of.
 * Image is a screen shot that appears in the article, is freely licensed, and has rollover text, and is clear at 100 by 100 pixels.
 * Article created by MarnetteD on July 22, 2015, with readable prose on August 31 of 107 characters.
 * 5X Expansion began September 1, and currently has 1607 characters (0 words) "readable prose size".
 * The only qualifying readable prose is in the lead, which has multiple inline sourcing.
 * NPOV, No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
 * Spot check of referencing shows no copyvio, no close paraphrasing.
 * First hook is neutral, stated in the article, 100 characters, and sourced at the end of the sentence.
 * ALT1 hook is neutral, stated in the article, 113 characters, and sourced at the end of the sentence.
 * No edit wars, no disputes, no tags.

Everything checks out. Good to go. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)