Template:Did you know nominations/Bechdel test
- 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Length
Bechdel test
[edit]- ... that many films fail the Bechdel test because they don't feature at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man?
- Reviewed: Miedzianka, Lower Silesian Voivodeship
- Comment: Spun off from Dykes to Watch Out For, with substantial changes and expansion.
Created/expanded by Sandstein (talk). Self nom at 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This needs a comprehensive review by someone who understands the intricacies of splitting off existing content into a new article and how the DYK rules of 5x expansion vs. 1500 minimum new prose characters apply in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I tangled with the rules on splits back in 2009; see this diff, recording the promotion of my hook, for the record of the discussion. The rule expressed then was that the split-off article needed to be expanded 5x from the version in the original article in order to qualify for DYK. However, my article was given some leeway and was somewhat short of 5x when it was sent to the prep area.
- The Bechdel test article is still pretty far short of 5x, but because it is interesting and "different", I hope we can use it in DYK. The hook fact is verified. However, I have some concerns about the overall sourcing of the article, but also some ideas on expanding it to 5x. Too much of the article is based on non-RS sources (including blogs) and/or assertions that seem too close to original research. An example of the latter is the statement "The social cataloging website Goodreads lists over 180 books in the genre 'Bechdel Test passed'", which is sourced to a Goodreads results page that appears to list books that at least one reader has identified as passing the test. Considering that these are determinations by anonymous readers and the information about the number of books listed is a Wikipedian's count off the webpage, this is not real high quality content. I'd feel better about its inclusion if the article were citing some other secondary source that had commented on the Goodreads list.
- Possibilities I see for expanding the article include: (1) provide more identification and discussion of specific works that published sources have identified as either passing or failing the Bechdel test (NPR story and the Oklahoma Daily piece are two sources that have examples; the Bechdel Test website is sufficiently comprehensive that it also would be a decent source for examples); (2) tell who Liz Wallace is and why this test is credited to her; and (3) expand upon the discussion of what various observers have said about why so few films and TV shows pass the test. The last item deserves a new section, separate from "Application" and "Limitations and problems", both of which focus on the mechanics of the test and not its larger implications. --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have just left a note on the creator/expander's page about the issues listed above. I'm hoping for a response here as to whether the article's sourcing and potential expansion might be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the arcana of DYK rules, but almost all of the text has been rewritten, making this in substance a new article with a lot more than the requirements' worth of new text. The proposed expansions sound worthwhile, but I'm not sure how they relate to the issue of the DYK nomination. In my estimation, the substance of the article is sourced to reliable sources; what is not is incidental content, or matters for which primary sources may be used, such as facts about the number of films or books listed on certain sites. I've removed the Goodreads stuff though (one of the few remaining sentences from the original article) because I agree that it's not high-quality information. At any rate, I don't have time to work on it further now, but any who have should feel free to do so. Sandstein 17:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- The DYK rules require that the nominated article content be "new to Wikipedia". When a new article is "spun out" of an existing article, as happened in this case, the new article must be at least 1500 characters long and must be a 5x expansion over the previous article. This one isn't long enough. Removing the content about the list on Goodreads made it shorter. I made suggestions for expansion to help this article qualify for DYK and because I think it could be expanded without much difficulty. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
With regret, as the expansion in the past ten days has been only 352 prose characters, it is time to close this nomination as not having qualified per Orlady above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
