This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCanada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
A fact fromHere Will I Nest appeared on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theDid you know column on 19 July 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... thatHere Will I Nest was the first dramatic Canadian feature film to be shot in colour, and the first film adaptation of a Canadian play?
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 asthis nomination's talk page,the article's talk page orWikipedia 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.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: -Awaiting QPQs Done. Overall:@Jon698: Article is new enough (freed from redirect on 6/3) and long enough. Hook is interesting, though I'll have to AGF on its source since I don't have 165 bucks to spend on the book.(I probably have access through the Wikipedia Library, though...) 2 QPQs are needed since DYK is in backlog mode again, but other than that, this nomination is good to go.'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk •contribs)08:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698 andCanonNi: Two issues here. Firstly, superlative hooks are discouraged perWP:DYKHOOK, and so I must ask for something else. Secondly, AGF approval is deprecated perWP:DYKCITE, and so whatever hook you propose, I must ask for a quote from the source.--Launchballer16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Per page 3: "In 1942, Melbrun E. Turner's Here Will I Nest, the first motion picture adaptation of a Candian play, had its premiere in London, Ontario." Per page 20: "The film version of the play, also known as Talbot of Canada, was directed by Melbrun E. Turner in 1940 and is most notable, according to Peter Morris, "as the first Canadian dramatic feature in colour" (Morris, Embattled Shadows, 187)." BTW what do you mean by superlative?Jon698 (talk)16:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first fictional colour film in Canadian film seems important and far different from stuff like "first (insert group)" articles.Jon698 (talk)16:50, 30 June 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.
i'll take this one! comments soon. for now though, i noticed the article is relatively light on detail; for the first colour film in canada that's somewhat surprising, is it a feature of it being lost? additionally peter morris (1978) has no citations.--Plifal (talk)12:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
anything more specific than just "racism"? it's a bit confusing why they'd be in a relationship in the first place if it's ended because of racism.
suggestion: remove repetition of romance.
are there any other cast members that could be notable? consider redlinking if so.
"only English-language one" > "only English-language film adaptation"
move citation 4 to the end of the sentence.
The second sentence of the first paragraph feels like it would be more accurately placed in the release section of the article.
"in 2023) It" > "in 2023). It"
per peter morris (1970), it may be worth mentioning that the film wasn't a big studio film, but rather "basically an amateur production", and that the film's director was in the same dramatical societies as the person who wrote the original play.
"Only a few pages of the original script also survives." this is ungrammatical.
you can probably merge these paragraphs together.
okay that's my lot. checked both morris books, smith and gallagher for source review and found nothing immediately wrong about the sourcing, also did a cursory google search on news, scholar, and internet archive which didn't turn anything new up. maybe just double check to make sure there's nothing more you could add though.--Plifal (talk)09:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plifal: I have addressed almost all of your comments in thisedit. For point 3, that is what the source states and due to the film being lost I cannot add anything else. None of the cast members are notable and it was an amateur production as Morris points out. I will get around to doing point 9 later today.Jon698 (talk)21:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jon698, thanks! although the reference after "16 mm Kodachrome film" should also be placed at the end of the sentence, ideally that should always be the case. after a comma is ok, but mid-sentence generally isn't (it probably isn't necessary to have three citations for it being the first feature-length canadian film shot in colour, but if you want to keep them it may be better to cite and quote this in a note to avoid over-citation). when this and the above are addressed i'll be good passing this.--Plifal (talk)08:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plifal: I have done point nine in thisedit. I want to keep the 16 mm Kodachrome film citation where it is for the reason that you stated. The citation is also covering all of the information before it, which the three citations at the end aren't.Jon698 (talk)22:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok looks good. authorship clear checks and earwig reports 7.4% similarity (copyright violation unlikely)[1] so i'm happy passing this review. congrats!--Plifal (talk)13:19, 25 August 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.
@Jon698 Is there any way the lead of the article can be expanded? It's particularly short for a Good Article, and leaves out a fair amount of interesting and notable details from the synopsis and production sections described in the body. Cheers!Johnson52423:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-
@Jon698: Article is new enough (freed from redirect on 6/3) and long enough. Hook is interesting, though I'll have to AGF on its source since I don't have 165 bucks to spend on the book.(I probably have access through the Wikipedia Library, though...) 2 QPQs are needed since DYK is in backlog mode again, but other than that, this nomination is good to go.'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk •contribs)08:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved.'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk •contribs)04:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
