353:
292:
Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article". Granted, while Hook #0 is present in the article, it is more of a summary of the table and lacks a source at the end. Conversely, as you yourself state, the second hook is directly cited by a source in the article.
205:: I find alt0 to be witty from the implication of over-specificity; I have been cautious with the phrasing of alt1 as it is based on a source (here, oddly, that makes me somewhat cautious as I have not done the math on every Oscar-eligible film myself to 'check'). Article also nominated at FLC, but nothing in either set of instructions precludes this nom, too.
291:
Another issue with the first hook is that it apparently fails to meet eligibility criterion 3:B, which states that "each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact.
320:
I think that would be best. I'm sorry, I understand you preferred that hook over the second one. It's just that a hook using 6 continuous adjectives to describe the noun "film" is just too much. Especially when the second hook you wrote is so much more interesting.
93:
284:. Personally, I find both hooks interesting, although I might be inclined to go with the latter; ALT1. While the first one is also interesting, I'm note sure about the fact that it consists primarily of a string of adjectives used to describe
288:. The second one is better written, looking, and also more interesting, as it relates to the Oscars. Associating the movie with the Oscars is something that I believe makes the hook more interesting for a general and broad audience.
356:
The ALT1 hook is not only better than the first, but quite interesting on its own. The source is in
Hungarian, and the article does have a note pointing out the part of the text that confirms the hooks claim. Seems ready to go.
36:
377:
197:
88:
228:: While the list was created months ago, it wasn't moved from drafspace to mainspace until April 3, which is also when the DYK nomination took place, making it
40:
244:
present in the infobox, which originates from a YouTube video using "Creative
Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". Furthermore, the list is
186:
167:
246:
263:
17:
44:
258:
252:
143:
236:
230:
362:
326:
83:
113:
118:
358:
322:
297:
337:
307:
217:
103:
65:
371:
98:
29:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
333:
315:
303:
213:
352:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
180:
161:
123:
61:
171:
comedy, horror, queer, Jewish, debut independent films of 2020 and 2021?
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
268:
copyright violation or other form of plagiarism issues are unlikely
240:, having much more than just 1,500 characters. There is one
280:: Both hooks are less than 200 characters, making them
148:
108:
220:). Self-nominated at 23:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC).
198:Template:Did you know nominations/Zamia pygmaea
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
302:I am happy to withdraw alt0 based on this.
190:to not receive an Oscar nomination in 2022?
71:
135:List of accolades received by Shiva Baby
74:
378:Passed DYK nominations from April 2022
262:. As indicated by the copyvios tool (
7:
24:
250:, with everything being properly
68:) 20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
45:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Did you know
18:Template:Did you know nominations
351:
32:Please do not modify this page.
1:
187:one of the most-awarded films
329:) 18:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
310:) 18:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
365:) 14:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
340:) 20:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
37:this nomination's talk page
394:
332:No, don't worry about it!
168:considered one of the best
119:Find sources (notability)
94:Earwig's Copyvio Detector
41:the article's talk page
109:A Simple Word Counter
89:Reviewer instructions
274:has also been done.
256:through the use of
114:Reviewers' template
221:
132:
131:
385:
355:
319:
301:
259:inline citations
211:
72:
56:The result was:
34:
393:
392:
388:
387:
386:
384:
383:
382:
368:
367:
366:
313:
295:
155:
153:
149:Article history
137:
128:
104:Character count
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
391:
389:
381:
380:
370:
369:
359:PanagiotisZois
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
323:PanagiotisZois
298:PanagiotisZois
275:
209:
208:
207:
206:
200:
191:
152:
151:
146:
144:Back to T:TDYK
140:
138:
136:
133:
130:
129:
127:
126:
121:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
80:
77:
76:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
390:
379:
376:
375:
373:
364:
360:
354:
339:
335:
331:
330:
328:
324:
317:
312:
311:
309:
305:
299:
294:
293:
290:
289:
287:
283:
279:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
255:
254:
249:
248:
243:
239:
238:
234:. It is also
233:
232:
227:
224:
223:
222:
219:
215:
204:
201:
199:
195:
192:
189:
188:
183:
182:
177:
174:
173:
172:
170:
169:
164:
163:
157:
156:
150:
147:
145:
142:
141:
134:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
79:
78:
73:
70:
67:
63:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
285:
282:short enough
281:
277:
271:
267:
257:
251:
245:
241:
235:
229:
225:
210:
202:
193:
185:
179:
175:
166:
160:
158:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
237:long enough
212:Created by
178:: ... that
124:Hook length
75:DYK toolbox
286:Shiva Baby
270:. Lastly,
231:new enough
181:Shiva Baby
162:Shiva Baby
159:... that
99:QPQ check
84:DYK check
372:Category
194:Reviewed
58:promoted
334:Kingsif
316:Kingsif
304:Kingsif
247:neutral
214:Kingsif
203:Comment
253:cited
242:image
16:<
363:talk
338:talk
327:talk
308:talk
278:Hook
264:Here
226:Page
218:talk
184:was
176:ALT1
66:talk
62:SL93
272:QPQ
165:is
60:by
43:or
374::
357:--
266:)
196::
139:(
39:,
361:(
336:(
325:(
318::
314:@
306:(
300::
296:@
216:(
154:)
64:(
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.