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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
I've had a look through it and made a number of copyedits. It's generally OK, but a few of the sources are very questionable, either being blogs or categorically unreliable sources: specifically #11 (Blogcritics), #13 and #15 (WND) and #16 (Right Wing Watch). I don't think the article can be accepted with these sources being used. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for overlooking the fact that this was outstanding. To be honest, I am still uncertain about these sources, especially quoting someone as extreme and marginal as Corsi. I'll ask on WT:DYK for a second opinion. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Prioryman asked for a second opinion, and mine is that neither source is appropriate. The first Corsi opinion piece, which is criticizing an MSNBC piece on the movie, ends with an offer to sell the reader a DVD of Gilbert's movie. Using it is simply inappropriate—and by extension, the other Corsi WND piece—especially as all the information being sourced for this article is also available from a WP:RS that presumably has no bias, The Hollywood Reporter (including the two-year claim). There's no need or reason for Corsi's opinions to be here. As for the "Confessions of an Overworked Mom" blogger, who describes her blog as "a site devoted to helping busy moms make choices about the eco-friendly, time saving, gourmet products they use in their homes", she strikes me as a very odd choice for commenting on Gilbert's work. Is there no professional, more reliable source available? This review is the sole seeming basis for the later statement, "was more poorly received" (since the other reviewer gives 1.5 of 5 stars, a pretty bad review despite the emphasis given here to its "thorough overview"), and this strikes me as a pretty weak justification. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No action has been taken on the above issues in the week since the nominator was notified. Allowing one more week for the issues to be addressed, since an icon was not previously given. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)