Template:Did you know nominations/Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds
- ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focuses on a gay man who pretends to be straight so he can seduce another man?
- Source: Cohen, Neil (November 2, 2006). "Just Desserts - 2004 Out Far! Sensation Eating Out is Back for Seconds". Echo Magazine. Archived from the original on February 24, 2007. Retrieved February 20, 2024.
- ALT1: ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds featuring a scene where a character has sex in a portable toilet caused many actors to drop out? Source: Quantic, David (May 29, 2007). "Serving Seconds: The Making of Eating Out 2". Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Ariztical Entertainment.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Farnese Artemis
PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC).
Not a review, but ALT0 fails WP:DYKFICTION. ALT1 should be fine on that front.--Launchballer 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Thank you for contributing to the discussion. :) Taking that into account, would ALT0 work as "that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focusing on a gay man who pretends being straight to seduce another man came from writer-director Phillip J. Bartell's desire to invert the first film's premise?"? I can come up with a few alternatives if needed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- ALT2 still violates that policy I'm afraid, and I still think ALT1 is more interesting. I would however suggest a slightly shorter version of ALT1 per WP:DYKTRIM, ALT1a: ... that a scene in Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds caused many actors to drop out?. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I fear that if ALT1 is trimmed, it will end up becoming less interesting. On the one hand, it can be argued that it creates a sense of mystery. As in, "why did many actors drop out?". But on the other hand, the idea that actors dropped out of a role because the character has sex in a portable toilet is definitely unique and will also catch people's attention; I think. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- PanagiotisZois, this is not a review either, but I'm afraid retaining ALT1's bit about sex in a toilet would be borderline "excessively sensational or gratuitous" as per WP:DYKINT; concealing the scene in question through ALT1a should arguably make for an "Intriguing hook that leaves the reader wanting to know more". Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Full review still needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't find any of the hooks up above usable or interesting, and I don't get the hold up on writing new hooks as there are many available in the article. The nom has had two months to offer new ones. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you intend on doing a full review? Until that happens and someone reviews this nomination, why bother coming up with new ones now? Once someone actually performs a proper review, there's nothing on my part to do.PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's pretty much the opposite to how I work, so I'll leave the review to someone else who will work with you. The "why bother" attitude is disturbing to me, as you could easily add new hooks and attract a reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
@PanagiotisZois and Viriditas: Right, well, the way I work is that I review the oldest fully unreviewed nom when I need a QPQ, and this is it (ping me when you've finished with Hanif Kureshi). This is long enough and new enough. QPQ done and I see no article disqualifiers. I would have said that ALT1a was intriguing (I would have wondered why they dropped out) and I disagree with ALT1 falling foul of WP:DYKGRAT (this is an article about sex!), but if Viriditas disagrees then you should probably propose another hook.--Launchballer 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: All right, I've come up with a few alternative hooks. I do think the OG is interesting, albeit needing a bit of rewording, and ALT1 also works in either its short or long fomr, but hopefully these new ones will prove more interesting. ALT2: "... that Phillip J. Bartell, writer and director of Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds, once described the film as "gaysploitation"?" Source. ALT3: "...that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds cowriter Q. Allan Brocka, a film heavily featuring the ex-gay movement, was often asked by ex-gay groups to denounce his homosexuality?" (Source: DVD Making-Of). ALT4: "...that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds featuring nude scenes involving the male leads caused one critic to describe the film as a "must see"?" Source.PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh I agree, ALT0 is interesting, but we can't use it because of WP:DYKFICTION and we can't use ALT3 as it fails WP:DYKMAJOR. ALT2's fine, though I'd trim it as follows: ALT2a: ... that the director and co-writer of Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds once described the film as "gaysploitation"?. (Technically I'd need another reviewer for 'co-writer', but ALT3 AGF checks out factually and covers that there was more than one writer so I'm IARing.) ALT4 feels promotional, so I'm approving ALT2a only. (I still don't think a hook about toilet sex is gratuitous from an article about sex, but let's see what a promoter thinks of ALT2a.)--Launchballer 12:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- If the use of "co-writer" is an issue, the hook can simply state "the director of" instead. One could argue that directors are usually treated as more important roles than screenwriters when it comes to films; unlike TV shows. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
