- The following discussion 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) 14:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Stub created 17 March and speedied, unspeedied, Prodded, unprodded, sent to AfD. Rescued at AfD after PamD added a couple of refs and nominator withdrew, then expanded by MQS.
Created/expanded by MichaelQSchmidt (talk), PamD (talk). Nominated by PamD (talk) at 09:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- For a movie to get bad reviews, isn't that rare.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to suggestions for an ALT hook.. and offer a couple below... but when an anticipated film becomes a stinker in the eyes of reviewers, that critical disappointmet can become THE interesting factoid that can serve our readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the irony of an anticipated film bombing is interesting, but there is nothing in the article that says the film was anticipated. ALT 1 assumes that people know of or like Lock Stock, and ALT 2 seems like a TV Guide listing. I think the opening line in reception is brilliant, and could be turned into a hook. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- ALT 3: ... that critics described the 2002 comedy thriller Triggermen as "neither noticeably comic nor remotely thrilling"?
- In agreement, I like ALT 3 plenty. Definitely catches the eye. Thanks for offering it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good to go with ALT 3. Long enough, new enough, well-referenced and no obvious problems with the text. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)