Talk:Nigel Bluck

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Nigel Bluck worked as a second-unit cinematographer on The Lord of the Rings trilogy shortly after completing his first feature film? Source: “Contrast is the Toughest Thing to Shift”: DP Nigel Bluck on the Two Nicolas Cages of The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
  • ALT1: ... that Nigel Bluck used an unconventional bleach-bypass process on his debut feature film Stickmen (2001)? Source: True Detective, Season Two
  • ALT2: ... that Nigel Bluck's cinematography has been compared to the work of painter Edward Hopper by a Jungian psychology journal? Source: A Review of “Handsome Harry”
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I am yet to review a nomination for QPQ.

Moved to mainspace by Jeraxmoira (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well sourced, neutral and plagiarism free - Earwig just shows a couple of phrases. No QPQ is required. On the hooks, ALT0 and ALT2 are fine, but with ALT1 the source doesn't say the technique is unconventional (the goes for the article text too - I'm guessing if you have existing knowledge you can infer it, but it needs to be explicit to be included in the article and the hook). I also think with ALT1 the readers won't know what bleach-bypass is, and this assumed knowledge is something that DYK tries to avoid. It's up to you if you'd like to fix ALT1 and re-word it, or we can strike it as ALT0 and ALT2 are fine. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• One more thing, I think the final citation for "Anaconda" needs expanding its not clear to me where the pdf originated, so a full reference please Lajmmoore (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You are right, no matter how I try to rephrase ALT1, it may not make sense to general readers who are not familiar with cinematography, so I have gone ahead and struck ALT1. W.r.t Anaconda, I do not recall adding the PDF, but I have replaced it with a review that lists him as the DP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, going back to the article, the source for the bleaching process only says "boldly" - not unconventional - is it possible to either refine the text to better reflect the words of the interview, or to find a more supportive source? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I’ve made the change. Let me know if that’s okay. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

yep, that looks good now Lajmmoore (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)