Template:Did you know nominations/We Interrupt This Program

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We Interrupt This Program

(

)

... that the opening of the WandaVision episode "We Interrupt This Program" portrayed people returning from the Blip in a more serious tone than its previous comedic portrayal in Spider-Man: Far From Home? Source: [1] and [2]
- ALT1:... that the WandaVision episode "We Interrupt This Program" was pitched as if it were an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation to deviate from the sitcom genre of the past episodes? Source: [3]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Extreme event attribution

Improved to Good Article status by Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk). Nominated by Favre1fan93 (talk) at 19:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC).

New enough (promoted to GA the day before nomination).
Long enough.
On policy issues:

You may know better than me about this one: isn't it typical, when relying on primary source material for the plot, to cite that primary source (the episode itself)? I see you've cited it elsewhere.
May want to look for repeated wikilinks, but that's not something that would hold up a DYK, of course.
It just passed GA (with a pretty thin review for such a long article IMO), but I'd recommend inviting the guild of copy editors to take a pass, and also to look for how much detail is based on primary sources. Obviously there are times with fiction and media productions there's a decent amount we can cite to primary sources, but elsewhere I'm not so sure. In general this isn't stuff that should hold up a DYK, with one exception that I'd call a policy issue: the marketing section's last two sentences are basically just advertising for Marvel products with no independent coverage. Are there independent sources for these?
Typo "rampes up" under critical response.
Need a citation at the end of a sentence containing a quote ("gasp in horror"). Ditto the line with "strongly presented". Ditto "dull and predictable [choice], not to mention questionable on gender-stereotype grounds". Ditto "myriad storytelling possibilities".
Bojalad = Bolalad?
Analysis section. "Brilliant" is a quote (not a word we'd typically put in wikivoice, of course), and should be in quotes (with a cite at the end of that sentence). "closest thing Marvel has done to horror" is not a paraphrase, either - it's taken directly from the article.
"the greatest storytelling decision in the MCU since Nick Fury" is another quote not in quotes.

The hooks

The first hook is too long. 200 characters is the maximum, and less than that is typically preferred. Without markup this one is 233. I also worry about "one-er" (here and in the article). I've never seen it put that way, and it's not even mentioned in the long take article. There is a slightly slangy term for it, "oner", but that's not mentioned in the article either. IMO best to stick to "long take". Your call if you'd rather rewrite that to be shorter or just go with ALT1. ALT1 seems fine. I'll add another version of it as ALT2 for you to consider (minor copyedit and pipelink CSI for concision). Your call.

QPQ done/underway.
— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the WandaVision episode "We Interrupt This Program" was pitched like an episode of CSI, deviating from the sitcom genre of preceding episodes?
- @Rhododendrites: I've altered the main hook to get it under the character limit, which is now 200 exactly. Regarding your other comments, the plot does not need to be cited by the primary source; there was only one dup link, which is fixed; I can't speak to the GA reviewer, but they have been doing all the WandaVision episode article reviews and some comments they've had in the early episodes reviews applied as well to this and later episodes so those were adjusted before they got to the proper review. Regarding the marketing, no there are not, and the primary sources are the only reference to cite the content; fixed "rampes"; extra citation tags are not necessary since all the review/reception material is attributed to the next citation. Otherwise, that's citation overkill with the same tag used after every sentence; the person's last name is Bojalad; the analysis section has been adjusted per comments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  - plot does not need to be cited by the primary source - You're right. I found this documented: MOS:PLOTSOURCE.
  - there was only one dup link - there were a few others. I just removed them. I see that was reverted. Apparently there are conventions with writing about fiction I'm not aware of. Sorry about that. :/
  - applied as well to this and later episodes ah. Thanks for that context.
  - Regarding the marketing, no there are not, and the primary sources are the only reference to cite the content - For something like this, if there's no independent coverage, it seems like a clear WP:WEIGHT/WP:PROMO problem to just list various products Marvel has on offer based just on Marvel's website. Perhaps this is also some fiction-related convention I'm not aware of? If so, I'll go ahead and push this forward, but raise an eyebrow at a guideline that allows Wikipedia to just carry through marketing just because it's related to fiction.
  - since all the review/reception material is attributed to the next citation oof. If this is the case, that's a long-held misconception on my part. I know that I regularly see people require citations at the end of sentences with a quote, but now I can't find a policy/guideline which requires that, as opposed to at the end of a block of text.
  - Hook 1 works now. I still find ALT1/2 a little more interesting. I'll express a weak preference for ALT2 or ALT1, and defer to the user who promotes it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    - RE the marketing again. Yes the source is from Marvel, but the products can't be bought from Marvel. It is showing the various merchandise and the series' partners offering the products related to the episode in question. At least in this instance for WandaVision, each episode had specific merchandise made available through the "Marvel Must Haves" program. I do believe that got coverage from third party sources when it was announced, but for the specific products for this episode in question, that was just from Marvel's site.
    - RE the citations. As long as I have been editing, I have worked that all material is/should be cited by the closest reference, even if that doesn't come after a direct quote (or the exact quote/material is contentious on the article). Otherwise, you end up with sentence structure that looks like "Content with a "quote" and more.[citation 1] And here is more content with "quote number 2".[citation 1] Once again more citation 1 material from later in its article.[citation 1]" when all three sentences can be cited with the tag at the end of sentence three in my example. If other quotes/material is inserted, then of course, the citations would be needed, but that is not the case in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I still say the product material is promotional and should be removed absent independent sources, but it's not related to the hook and not so egregious that it should hold up the DYK. Going to go ahead and pass it now. To reiterate for whomever promotes this, I have a weak preference for ALT2, then ALT1, then the main hook, but will defer to you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ALT2 to T:DYK/P7