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 Allen3 ^talk 11:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

• ... that the 2013 film C/O Sir (poster pictured) tells a story of a blind school teacher's life?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sardar Ayaz Sadiq
• Comment: ALT1 ... that the school scenes of the 2013 film C/O Sir (poster pictured) were shot in Dow Hill School and Victoria Boys' School at Kurseong?

Created/expanded by Titodutta (talk), Bubaikumar (talk), Orlady (Orlady). Nominated by Titodutta (talk) at 08:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

• I like the original hook better. Fine on Copyvio, all quotes are attributed to sources, length, newness, QPQ and the hook is supported. GTG. Ashwin147 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• This was promoted, then removed from Queue 6 following concerns raised at WT:Did you know#C/O sir. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Attempts have been taken to sort those issues already. ALT1 is still above. Can you please check and update the required tasks list? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 06:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Needs a review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This MP3 download page appears to be a website for illegal downloads. The DMCA policy on their website states that people can report if their content is being infringed which will cause the website to remove their content. That DMCA policy is standard on any content piracy website in order to protect themselves even if what they are doing is illegal. Megaupload is a big example of that. I also don't understand how the image has no copyright. SL93 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I worked on the article wording. I think the close paraphrasing issues have been addressed, but I cannot speak for the download page that SL93 mentions. If it's an issue, it would be easy enough to remove the link from the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I just thought that I should mention it. I went through some articles and had to remove links to illegally uploaded movies which were obvious unlike the MP3 download page that I mentioned. I know that none of it was done with violating copyright in mind. SL93 (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm... I guess I should clarify the meaning of my "review needed" symbol. The article is new enough and long enough and adequately footnoted. Both hooks are sourced, and the original hook is more interesting. When I visited the article, I found that there was still some close paraphrasing. I did some rewriting, and I think the current version is good, but someone else should verify that. --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Two things. One not yet discussed on this template but raised here when it was originally pulled from the queue, is that the original hook seems to violate WP:DYKSG#C6: "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." I don't think "the 2013 film" is adequate real-world involvement, since the rest is a straight plot description. The original hook may be more effective, but if it isn't legal, it can't be used. The other is that I'd like to see a knowledgeable reviewer comment on whether the assertion that the pictured movie poster is not copyrightable, being text, is accurate from a U.S. point of view. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see the "work of fiction" issue as more than a minor problem here. This hook clearly indicates that it is about a movie. The problematic hooks are the ones that do not indicate that the context of the hook is a creative work. Furthermore, this hook says the movie "tells a story". Because "stories" are usually fiction, this does not necessarily imply that it was a true story. However, because it could be misinterpreted, it would be a simple matter to revise it:

• ALT2 ... that the 2013 film C/O Sir (poster pictured) tells a fictional story of a blind school teacher's life?
• ALT3 ... that the main character in the 2013 film C/O Sir (poster pictured) is a blind school teacher?

Of those choices, my preference is ALT3.

As for the image, it's catchy and its licensing might be acceptable, but because there is uncertainty about its licensing status, I personally would not choose to promote it to a queue. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Orlady, thanks for the explanation about the "work of fiction" aspect to the hook. Let's get those two hooks of yours, and the rewritten text (per your earlier clarification) reviewed. I did change your ALT numbers, since there was already an ALT1 at the top of this page and I didn't want there to be any confusion. (I also prefer ALT3.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• It took me a long time to return to this DYK discussion. I should be for sorry, but, on the other hand I am delighted as well that my recent works (which is very close to my heart) are requiring lots of studies and keeping me very much busy. It is delighting to see an editor (i.e. User:Orlady) is steering someone else's nomination, which is very rare. Most probably she recently helped in my another article too. Orlady deserves a big thank and applause. I have added their name in contributors' list. I am unsure if the other editor's name should be removed from the contributors' list, because his edits created lots of hindrance (mp3 download page, copyvio etc). I have not removed his name. Someone else can do. To answer the "two things" raised by BlueMoonset, a) hook real life, all plot: ALT1 was suggested, which was mentioned already, now ALT3 is excellent, b) the image copyright: you can read "C/O" in the image, and what you can not read in the image is written "Sir" in Bengali alphabets. So, it becomes an "all text" image, which, IMO, is eligible to become a PD-text candidate. But, frankly, I did not expect much to see the image at the main page. This should be all for now. --Tito☸Dutta 08:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset asked me to ring in here. The image is borderline PD-Simple, to me. The C/O Sir in red script is PD on its own, certainly, but the yellow background has a bit of texture that may or may not lead it to be copyrightable. As such, I'd like to avoid having this hook as the image hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Reviewer still needed: ALT hooks need reviewing, article needs checking to be sure close paraphrasing was fully dealt with by Orlady; please note Crisco's comments about the image immediately above. Thanks to whoever takes this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked it over and the close paraphrasing has been dealt with. The hook is verified by the inline citation at the end of the paragraph. I do not think that the image should be used because nothing was brought forward which shows that the image is for sure free use. The only two problems left have to do with one sentence - "It received average review by critics, and the acting of lead cast was praised." The sentence is unreferenced and it should say "reviews" and "of the". SL93 (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if the Twitter external link is needed. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that BlueMoonset said that ALT1 needs reviewing instead of saying the alt hooks need reviewing. Give me me a moment please. SL93 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, the ALT2 and ALT3 hooks are verified in at least references 2 and 3. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've taken care of the the one sentence. Since DYK requires one inline citation per paragraph, and this paragraph already has one, while a set of references would be nice (and certainly required in a more advanced article, to justify the summation of "average reviews" and "praised", and could be used for reviewer specifics), for the purposes of an article at this stage of development, I'm not sure it is necessary. (If the summaries are deemed to be a problem without sources, then I'd delete the second sentence entirely for now, and rename the section to "Release", dropping the "and reception".) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence and renamed the section title from "Release and reception" to "Release". I do think that the Twitter link should stay because it seems no different to me than an IMDb link. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)