- 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Jumper (pornographic film)
Moved to mainspace by George Ho (talk). Self nominated at 23:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC).
- Just barely long enough, history and reference verified. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- There are accuracy problems with both hooks and the article itself, which is why I'm pulling this back. The ALT1 hook, which had been promoted, claims that the reviewer said that the voice resembles the Wizard; in fact, he's complaining about tech issues in the film, where the voice's intermittent reverb is similar to Oz, not that the voice itself is. Indeed, this second Reception sentence (where ALT1 comes from) is a puzzle; there's no sense that both of the Kinnick quotes are about problems with the film (though the first one has to be so). I also think the Reception section is far too reliant on quotes, but when it tries to paraphrase it instead misleads: the original commentary says that the movie was "modeled somewhat" on Heaven Can't Wait, while the article and hook's "somewhat resembles" gives the impression of a closer adherence that the sources don't indicate is warranted. (Is there any similarity beyond that of a dead guy coming back to fix lives in the present?) For a new hook, something could possibly be done with the "well-developed" part of the Escoffier review, possibly in conjunction with his "some degree of acting" quote. It's too bad that Escoffier doesn't actually compliment the actors; if he had, then the hook could mention Yeager's acting (or you could do one just using the Kinnick review), but I think hooks that don't rely on a single commentary carry more weight. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did rephrases in article and on hooks. George Ho (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've just done some editing of the article to improve the phrasing and accuracy of what's being said, so as to increase the fidelity to the sources. That being done, I don't think ALT1 is tenable any more—the so-called resemblance with The Wizard of Oz was describing a problem with Jumper's technical issue, and doesn't mean they actually resemble each other, just that it's a way to explain the problem quickly to the reader. I'm suggesting a different take:
- ALT2: ... that according to one author, the award-winning 1991 gay pornographic film Jumper had a "well-developed" script that needed "some degree of acting in addition to skills as an adult performer"?
- I'm still not happy with the original hook as modified, even though I've added a "was" to it to improve the grammar. I'll leave it to another reviewer to decide which of the hooks are reasonable, or George could propose a new ALT altogether if he isn't happy with ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Reiterating icon noting need for new reviewer; please see above. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Given that the last three sentences in the "Plot" section are backed by the same source, I think there's no need to use a single inline citation for each of them: one at the end of the third will suffice. On the other hand, IMHO ... that one reviewer said that the 1991 gay pornographic film Jumper was "modeled somewhat" on the 1978 film Heaven Can Wait? is a much better approach to the purpose of a hook. Good to go.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)