Jump to content

Talk:42 (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leo Durocher's suspension

[edit]

The article edit is inaccurate to say that Leo Durocher's suspension was "never" because of his romantic relationship with actress Laraine Day. Three of multiple sources:

"Chandler, who came to be regarded as a joke as commissioner, never did. In truth, he had been under pressure to prove himself as commissioner, and in all likelihood was emboldened to act by the Catholic Youth Organization's decision (motivated by the headlines implicating Durocher in Day's divorce case) to end its affiliation with the Dodgers' youth group, the Knothole Club." - from the LA Times, at http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-06/sports/sp-154_1_leo-durocher

"Back in Brooklyn, disturbed over Durocher's role in Laraine Day's divorce action, and upset over Leo's earlier associations off the field, the Catholic Youth Organization withdrew from the Dodger Knothole Club, claiming that Durocher was "undermining the moral training of Brooklyn's Roman Catholic youth.""- from Sports Illustrated, at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1129732/2/index.htm

"The sorting out was a feast for headline writers, as Day sought a Mexican divorce and was speedily married to Durocher, only to see that marriage invalidated by a California judge. The baseball commissioner, Happy Chandler, suspended Durocher for the 1947 season as Brooklyn Catholics threatened to boycott the Dodgers. By 1948, the dust had cleared — Day was properly divorced, and she and Durocher remarried, and he was reinstated." - from the New York Sun, at http://www.nysun.com/obituaries/laraine-day-87-film-actress-and-first-lady/66358/

98.242.190.11 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the citation being offered ("and got himself suspended for the 1947 season by Commissioner A. B. (Happy) Chandler, "as a result of the accumulation of unpleasant incidents detrimental to baseball."") doesn't even say what's being stated in the article edit. It does NOT say Durocher's suspension never had anything to do with Laraine Day.

98.242.190.11 (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Jules Tygiel's book Baseball's Great Experiment: Jackie Robinson and His Legacy (published 1983), “On the morning of April 9 [1947], . . . Baseball Commissioner Happy Chandler shocked the baseball world by suspending Durocher for one year for ‘conduct detrimental to baseball.’ Durocher was the unfortunate victim of a long-simmering feud between Rickey and Yankee President Larry MacPhail, a conflict which had deepened, though not created, by their differences over the race issue. Several years earlier, Commissioner Landis had warned Durocher against consorting with known gamblers. In response, he had presented the commissioner with a list of people with whom he would no longer socialize. When two of the people on Durocher’s untouchable list appeared in MacPhail’s box at a Yankee game, both Durocher and Rickey attacked the hypocrisy of the situation. MacPhail, who had orchestrated Chandler’s selection as commissioner, cried slander and demanded an investigation of the charges. Few people expected any major developments to occur. Nonetheless, with the opening of the baseball season less than a week away, Chandler levied fines on both clubs and suspended the Dodger manager.” Tygiel further refers to Durocher's autobiography Nice Guys Finish Last (1976, pp 229-236), Harold Parrot's The Lords of Baseball (1976, pg 204), and Arthur Mann's Branch Rickey: American In Action (1957, pp 250-251).
The LA Times' opinion of baseball's comedic talents in choosing Chandler as Commissioner notwithstanding, stated opinion without actually researching the known facts. The CYO did sever its association with Brooklyn's "Knothole Gang", but it was an issue with Brooklyn, NOT with all of baseball. Durocher's adventures with Laraine Day were well known at the time, and served as fodder with which many bench jockey's taunted him, but those adventures were not what got him suspended. The only one of your cited sources that makes that direct claim is an obituary of Laraine Day,60 years after the suspension. The late Jules Tygiel was a respected baseball researcher, and I would consider him a much more authoritative source. -- Couillaud 15:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Smith vs. Lacy for BBWAA primacy

[edit]

The NYT says Sam Lacy was the first African-American writer in the BBWAA. Cooperstown and Wikipedia say it was Wendell Smith, though the Wikipedia entry is not sourced. Given the opposite opinions of Cooperstown and the Times, how is it we're picking a winner? JMOprof (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no opinion on this previously, because I had no idea which was correct, but now that you've pointed this out, I think it's best that we not mention this at all. Clearly, reliable sources differ on this, and we cannot decide which is to be believed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an online source, but the BBWAA lists Sam Lacy as a member starting in 1948 and Wendel Smith in 1956. -- Couillaud 05:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I added a {{cn}} tag to the paragraph. It's clearly required. Were it up to me, I would accept the Baseball Hall of Fame's article ("As the first black member of the BBWAA, [Smith] covered the White Sox...") on Smith over the NYTimes article on Lacy. The former being an agency that deals only in baseball vs. an agency that dabbles in baseball. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hall of Fame, while owning the best library of baseball-related materials, has been known to accept and publish inaccurate statements without independently checking them; this is one such example. And the BBWAA is short for "Baseball Writers Association of America". The BBWAA is also an agency that deals only in baseball, and its publication listed Lacy as the first African-American sports journalist admitted (1948), and listed Smith as admitted in 1956. I cannot give an online citation (and considering the massive body of knowledge that is still not online, I am not bothered by that), but the BBWAA should be considered a prime source as to its list of members. I think that it's probable that the movie used such data as the Hall as its source without checking further.
-- Couillaud 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in section on historical inaccuracies

[edit]

Jackie Robinson was born in 1919, according to every entry I can find in other sources. This would make him 28 in 1947, not 38 as the "historical inaccuracies" section previously claimed. This is either an unfortunate typo or a major mathematical error and I have corrected it and included a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.188.244 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy 2 in section on historical inaccuracies

[edit]

"The Brooklyn Dodgers held their 1947 Spring Training in Havana, Cuba, not Panama City, Panama, as depicted in the movie." false. The Dodgers went in Cuba and Panama. 85.69.175.172 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no Panama City in Panama, there IS a city named Panama in Panama but NO Panama City... there IS a Panama City in the PANhandle of Florida.. is this the one that is implied in the movie? 184.63.251.224 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for use

[edit]

“Dutch” Leonard

[edit]

Why was a lefty picked to portray the Phillies right-handed knuckleballer “Dutch” Leonard in the movie 42? 149.154.32.211 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White House images

[edit]

Hello, anyone interested in uploading public domain images of 42 people to commons would be interested in the Obama archives. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. --Plifal (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:42 (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Yovt (talk · contribs) 21:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Plifal (talk · contribs) 10:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi! it'd be my pleasure to take this one. as someone with a minor interest in baseball, a major interest in film, and with jackie robinson day around the corner, i reckon now's as good a time as any! i am currently also awaiting a good article review for kurosawa's high and low (1963), so if you'd like to take that one as a qpq, i would be grateful, but there's no pressure whatsoever! expect the bulk of my comments soon.--Plifal (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plifal, thank you very much for picking up this nomination, which has been in the film backlog since December last year. A great observation you made is the upcoming Jackie Robinson Day (April 15), which is sure to attract clicks here, so I really hope we complete this GA review by then. Again, thank you! 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

lead

[edit]
  • specify english variant template.

I am not sure what this template is, if you could show me that would be great. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sure! at the top of the article, under {{Use mdy dates|August 2013}}, add the template {{Use American English|April 2025}}, and repeat on the talk page.

 Done, thank you - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - 14:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

plot

[edit]
  • i'm not a fan of this first paragraph, although the film opens with a contextual montage, i would prefer it to be phrased in those terms. e.g. "A montage depicts the end of the Second World War and the associations baseball held as a symbol of democratic freedom, contrasted against scenes of racial disparity within American society." or some such.

 Done - 14:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  • consider linking Negro leagues. (s/n: the wiki article has it as plural, i'm not familiar with baseball history at all, if there was more than one league, doesn't it make sense for it to be "Negro leagues' Kansas City Monarchs".

 Done - 14:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "Robinson, who has a confrontation over gas station usage, is approached ... " there's not much context there, consider rephrasing to "During a racially motivated confrontation at a gas station, Robinson is approached ... "

 Done - 14:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "the AAA affiliate of the Brooklyn farm system." i understand what's being said but it reads a bit weirdly. maybe "the AAA affiliate farm team for the Brooklyn Dodgers."

 Done - 14:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "Philadelphia hotel denies the Dodgers, leading to" include service or lodging &c. after Dodgers.

 Done - 14:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  • is the crowd at crosley field actually silenced? or is it just his family?

 Done - removed any mention of silencing; unclear whether it really happened. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cast

[edit]
  • include full stops after glossaried cast members and their characters (or remove the one for harrison ford's character, so long as it's consistent).

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

production

[edit]
  • it should read, "a moment of "serendipity"" since it's a quotation from a phrase helgeland uses himself.

 Done - 14:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Negro leagues are linked in this section but mentioned earlier, perhaps consider rephrasing the original statement? (s/n: should "Leagues" be capitalised?)

 Done - reworded some. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • the second paragraph in the 'casting and preproduction' subsection is too long, split it up, and the first paragraph is a little too short. it makes sense to me to put the first sentence of paragraph two at the start of paragraph one, and then continue with brief explanations of boseman and beharie in their leading roles before going into more depth. play with it as you wish though.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • i feel that the majority of the final paragraph of the 'critical response' subsection is better suited to the 'casting and preproduction' subsection.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reception

[edit]
  • consider explaining the disparity in box office revenues between north america and the rest of the world (obvious i know, but if there's a sentence or two you can find, it would be worth inserting it).

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • it sold 1.3 million units, becoming the 33rd highest-grossing dvd, but is that by number of units sold or revenue (i assume the latter)? only dvds, excluding blu-rays?

 Done clarified - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the 'critical response' subsection, quite a few of the direct quotes are a little too long for my tastes, ideally each review should have a dedicated sentence or two, with only one or two extended quotes in the whole section (if any), but ideally there should be quoted phrases around original prose (including the previously mentioned final paragraph).

 Done already - quotes seem to fall within the 1 sentence length. No objections to any proposed trims - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what i meant by this is that the reviews should have one or two sentences of original prose. extended quotations ideally should be kept minimal. e.g. "Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post wrote, "By the time Pee Wee Reese (Lucas Black) famously puts his arm around Robinson during a game in Cincinnati, 42 has taken on cumulative, undeniable momentum"." which is a pattern used frequently throughout the article would ideally read something more akin to "In a (positive/mixed/negative) review, Ann Hornday of The Washington Post referenced the scene of racial unity between Pee Wee Reese and Jackie Robinson as emblematic of 42's "cumulative, undeniable momentum"." Plifal (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done hopefully right this time - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it definitely looks better. there are still a few instances throughout the article where i'm concerned the prevalence of extended quotes constitutes a copyvio, but with a commitment to continue these rephrasings, i don't have an issue with moving on from this.
  • jackie robinson day is linked again in this section, recommend de-linking in accordance with the mos.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • the rearrangement of the pictures has led to a right-ward alignment of the 'accolades' subsection, which is in contravention of the mos for layout.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

analysis

[edit]
  • i'm also concerned about some of the extended quotations in this section. consider rephrasing a bit.

 Done what I think is not too much; let me know if otherwise. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • the second paragraph of the 'themes and intepretations' also looks a bit too long.

 Done split - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hollywood platform. "I realized ... " -> "Hollywood platform. He continued "I realized ... " remove the "he said" that follows the quotation.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • the 'historical inaccuracies and omissions' subsection feels a little too much like a list, try rewriting some of it by theme.

I will note that section has been largely untouched by me since I started the restructuring of this article; much of it did not comply with MOS:FILMHIST so it has been cleansed of the fluff, expect a revamped and larger-than-current section in a bit. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

references

[edit]

citation numbers from this revision.

  • earwig shows 16.7% similarity, violations unlikely.[1]
  • link dispenser shows 22 links have issues, including 14 links that could be down, and 91 links that could benefit from an archive (including some of those which are down).[2]
  • random source spot-check. sources 12, 13, 14, 20, 75, and 105 accurately reflect the content of the article.
  • i tried to access source 40, but the link is down.

Source 40 by Chattanooga Times Free Press seems good to me. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weird! not working on my end. i would like an archive link on it,  Done same with the others as much as possible.--Plifal (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC) Magenta clockclock[reply]
source 40 seems to accurately reflect the information present in the article. i do want to ask, why water for elephants and not deliverance though? lol  Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in this revision source 40 = 41, the statement "While filming wrapped in Chattanooga on May 25, 2012" doesn't seem to be supported by source 41 or 50 in the reference (and actually seems to be contradicted by the publishing date of the former when it states filmmaking was scheduled to finish "today" when the article was published in june).--Plifal (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • i can't see where in source 50 the information about abbey road studios and a sixty piece orchestra is detailed. source 129 seems to direct to the website's homepage not to the main source of the article's content.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • source 77 could use a clean up, extending the citation to include the website, archive link, etc. same with source 23, and source 9, which requires a website and article author.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • is source 116 reliable?

The source "Not Even Past" seems like a reliable digital magazine site. - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looks fine! not sure why i was concerned, maybe just because it was new to me.

image review

[edit]
  • File:42 film poster.jpg lacks clear rationale for use concerning commercial opportunities and the requirement to not be replaceable with free media.

 Done - has been added rationale. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - it has been removed; no problem. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

round 2 notes

[edit]

general

[edit]

citation numbers from this revision

  • black and Black are capitalised inconsistently throughout the article, there's no consensus (i'm aware of) on this but consistency is good, and make sure the same is used for "white" too, unless otherwise quoted :)

lead

[edit]
  • while ok for a good article, best practice in the lead can discourage contrasting a production budget against box office revenue since it can be taken as editorialising. best to keep budget to the production section of the lead, and box office to the release section of the lead.

plot

[edit]
  • because things in the lead are repeated in the body (yes i said yes i will yes) please introduce Rachel Robinson with her full name here too.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

production

[edit]
  • Rachel Robinson is linked again here, recommend de-linking.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • source 27, in the 'casting and preproduction' subsection, attribute the quote beginning ""would tape [his] practices every few weeks, ... "" to boseman.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • consider adding a sentence about the soundtrack's reception to round out the 'music' subsection.

 Done - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reception

[edit]
  • excise mention of the production budget in this section.

 Done got some trim - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • not a big issue but as of current the 'home media' subsection looks a bit sad :(

references

[edit]
  • sources 1 (also |author-link=A. O. Scott), 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 26, 27, 35, 36, 38, 39, 45, 57, 62, 63, 65-68, 76, 81, 85 ... etc. need an author name.
  • sources 46, 47 are from youtube. ideally print sources are preferred, though i'm not against their use here. both videos are short, but if there's a particular part you're drawing from, a timestamp would be nice.

image review

[edit]

 Done addressed - 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

[edit]

@Yovt: ok! those are my main issues for now. at a glance the sources seem to be reliable, i have some concerns on the small number of sources i've looked at, but nothing so egregious that it would encourage me to quickfail the review, it just requires a bit more attention. it may be my tiredness, state of mind, whatever but i couldn't really see much in the way of prose errors (although my familiarity with the mos on this matter is minimal so i may recommend a copyedit). this has clearly been a project you've been dedicated to and you should be so proud of what you've added to the encyclopedia! i thought the release section was especially well-written. if you have any questions, concerns, contradictions, whatever, please let me know. this is my second ga review so any feedback on this is also appreciated.--Plifal (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • just wanted to note that i've seen your additions and revisions, things have been a bit busy for me at work over the past few days, so forgive me if my notes aren't incredibly detailed, but if there's anything i consider important to fix i'll let you know. thank you for going through the article again. i've included a few more concerns above.--Plifal (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit: forgot to @Yovt:) hi! just going through the article again, picking up on any further issues in the article i consider requiring redressing. i have to ask you to stop adding new content to the article though (since the review began five significant edits have been made). to do so during the ga review (without prompting) prolongs the process unnecessarily, when this by all rights could meet the requirements regardless. sorry to be annoying! i think we're getting there though!--Plifal (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello @Plifal, and thank you very much for your review so far. I have covered much of every point addressed here, and I do resonate with your insight in several parts. By this stage of the game I don't believe there's anything really holding this article back from GA status, but I too could be wrong. Again, thank you! 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 23:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for not getting back to you on this! i quite concur, everything important has since been resolved, and any issues i have are in the process of being resolved or aren't standards required for a good article. it's my pleasure to close this review as passed! well done! a couple days before the premiere date, in time for jackie robinson day! please feel free to submit the article to did you know, and if you have any commentary or feedback about the gar please let me know on my talk page :)
--Plifal (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

{{#ifeq:Talk|Talk|

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 Sock talk 12:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Yovt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is almost perfect and I think your first suggestion is definitely the best. The only issue I take with it is that it doesn't specify that 42 is a film. I also thought it made sense just to specify "three days", so I made three minor changes to clarify that and I think this revision works nicely:
...that the 2013 film 42 was released three days before Jackie Robinson Day, the annual MLB celebration of the man it portrays?
I also think saying "the baseball player it portrays" for Jackie's link would work, but I'm less married to that. Let me know what you think or if you'd like to tweak it, but that's my only minor note! Fantastic work on expanding and improving the article, Yovt. Sock (tock talk) 22:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sock, thank you for picking up this DYK nomination, and for calling it "almost perfect", first time's the charm it seems. Yes I do believe your proposal is great and I have no objections, will be happy with the following (or other version); thank you!

...that the 2013 film 42 was released three days before Jackie Robinson Day, the annual MLB celebration of the ballplayer it portrays? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think we need to specify "baseball player" since "ballplayer" is only really a baseball-specific term in the U.S. The UK uses it as a general term for skilled sports players, especially in football/soccer, and spelling it out still comes in well below the 200-character limit. Just to confirm, are you okay with it being "...that the 2013 film 42 was released three days before Jackie Robinson Day, the annual MLB celebration of the baseball player it portrays?" Sock (tock talk) 16:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately yes, I am very much okay with the following, and thank you Sock:

...that the 2013 film 42 was released three days before Jackie Robinson Day, the annual MLB celebration of the baseball player it portrays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoavt (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! In that case, we're good to go. Great work again! Sock (tock talk) 12:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Hundreds+of+Beavers&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
  2. ^ https://link-dispenser.toolforge.org/analyze/42%20(film)
  3. ^ "Jackie Robinson film '42' capitalizes on Dodgers for promotion". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  4. ^ "Jackie Robinson film '42' capitalizes on Dodgers for promotion". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  5. ^ "'42' Sets Baseball Movie Record for Opening Weekend - CBS Detroit". CBS News. April 15, 2013.
  6. ^ "Why '42' Had the Most Successful Opening Weekend of Any Baseball Movie Ever". Bloomberg. April 17, 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:42_(film)&oldid=1285072596"