Template:Did you know nominations/The Martian (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) 04:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The Martian (film)

 * ... that The Martian became Ridley Scott's (pictured) highest-grossing film?


 * ALT1:... that NASA helped The Martian more than most other films in its development?
 * Reviewed: Soon. Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary Austin Petersen

Improved to Good Article status by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 12:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC).

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
 * &#x2717; Paragraphs [2] (After ... news.),[3] (After ... lives.) in this article lack a citation.
 * &#x2717; There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 39.0% confidence. (confirm)
 * &#x2717; Captain Assassin! has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review is required for this nomination.
 * QPQ is done. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Submitted QPQ of "looks all good to me" is not acceptable. QPQ reviews must be complete and specify everything the reviewer checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On it. — Llywelyn II   18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Timely; certainly long enough, well-cited, and within policy; GAs which happen to have paragraphs which happen to lack citations are just proof that rule of thumb should never be used as an ironclad rule, not evidence that the article needs tweaking or rewriting; hook had grammar issue (fixt); hook rather boring but (more importantly) unsupported in the article (it's claimed in the lead without citation; the citation in the running text merely notes it was his highest domestic box office as of 2015); the pic is irrelevant to ALT1; ALT1 is pretty banal: space agency helps a movie about space more than most other movies... The mere return of The Martian to DYK is going to be more surprising than that hook, so it'd be nice if there were a better one... but fwiw it is supported. (Cleaned up grammar, though.)

The bigger issue is that, no, the QPQ is not done. Whatever could be offered to such a lazy review is undone by the fact that in this specific case the "hook" the editor approved mentioned the wrong countries and, even once that was fixed, still had nothing to do with actual subject of the article being promoted. Certainly appreciate the good work and congratulations on the GA... just, y'know, go do another one and, y'know, this time take the time to actually do it. — Llywelyn II   19:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Still waiting on QPQ. — Llywelyn II   03:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * New QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Austin Petersen is done. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 12:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I'll note that the new QPQ involved OKing a hook that wasn't actually supported by the citation (June versus "currently"), so you really should still be more careful... That said, you did most of the work and gave your QPQ to an editor who'll have another to double check yours, so I won't hold up the nomination over it. We do appreciate your work improving these articles, just kindly spend a bit more time making sure these reviews are well cited.

Did you want to run with the ALT hook? or did you see anything more interesting to grab more readers? — Llywelyn II   12:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)