Talk:Beauty and the Bester
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Beauty and the Bester is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by dxneo (talk) at 10:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC) This article is ready to be reviewed in accordance with the good article criteria. Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review the article and decide if it should be listed as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the instructions. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beauty and the Bester article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 25, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that doctor Nandipha Magudumana received payment for the use of her archives in the Netflix documentary Beauty and the Bester, which she subsequently attempted to prevent from being aired? | |||||||||
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
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 Dclemens1971 talk 16:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
( )
- ... that doctor Nandipha Magudumana received payment for the use of her archives in the Netflix documentary Beauty and the Bester, which she subsequently attempted to prevent from being aired? Source: News24
dxneo (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- y - very minor issue, but the passage "However, some reviews suggest that the timeline can feel cluttered and might benefit from a more linear approach" under "Production and release" may be better suited to the reception sectionCleared this up, see below - Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - y -
the passage on "Arum Properties" seems to match one from hereCleared this up, see below
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Little unsure as if to wherever the site that Earwig came up with the copied passage is not just scraping from Wikipedia/the result of some AI BS, but it is dated to a few days before the creation of this article, so it may need looking into Cleared this up Iostn (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- LOL! I wrote that maybe a year or two ago on Nandipha Magudumana. Clearly they copied our work. I once contacted an outlet which copied this very article word for word, surprised Earwig didn't pick that up or maybe they removed it. dxneo (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- As for very minor issue, but the passage "However, some reviews suggest that the timeline can feel cluttered and might benefit from a more linear approach" under "Production and release" may be better suited to the reception section. I intentionally kept that information there because the first line introduced the documentary's creation, and the follow-up sentence was directly related. I wanted to avoid scattering related details throughout the article. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- I mean its minor enough that its probably fine to leave as is if there's a reason for it Iostn (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- If it was a minor, the article passes everything and the hook is interesting, why are there red-crosses above? Is there something I have to fix before approval? And the QPQ? dxneo (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- I mean its minor enough that its probably fine to leave as is if there's a reason for it Iostn (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- As for very minor issue, but the passage "However, some reviews suggest that the timeline can feel cluttered and might benefit from a more linear approach" under "Production and release" may be better suited to the reception section. I intentionally kept that information there because the first line introduced the documentary's creation, and the follow-up sentence was directly related. I wanted to avoid scattering related details throughout the article. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Peer review
Beauty and the Bester
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
Aiming for FA, any constructive comments and suggestions will be highly appreciated. The documentary explores the story of convicted South African murderer and rapist Thabo Bester, who faked his death and escaped from prison in 2022, and his relationship with the celebrity doctor Nandipha Magudumana, who allegedly became involved in the escape. dxneo (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
GoatLordServant
Hello hello!! One suggestion/question and than definitely a question:
- "
However, some reviews suggest that the timeline can feel cluttered and might benefit from a more linear approach
" feels like it would be at home in the Reception section. I don't think I've seen a critique of the production in a Production section before! If you think it's still fine there that'll be okay.
- I intentionally kept that information there because the first line introduced the documentary's creation, and the follow-up sentence was directly related. I wanted to avoid scattering related details throughout the article. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought of that approach. Very smart :) Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 22:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I intentionally kept that information there because the first line introduced the documentary's creation, and the follow-up sentence was directly related. I wanted to avoid scattering related details throughout the article. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is it okay if I just... like. Edit some grammar stuff myself if I just feel like doing it? It's my first Peer Review drive-by and I just felt like changing
"(...) as he wasn't impressed by the new voice notes"
to "as he was uninmpressed by the new voice notes
" all on my own, lol.
Thank you for helping me out on my aisle Dxneo :> Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 20:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is better if you comment, that way I dont have to revert a lot of things I dont agree with. dxneo (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha!! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 22:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is better if you comment, that way I dont have to revert a lot of things I dont agree with. dxneo (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Coming out of multiple rereads, I'm personally having trouble finding any gripes. Your sourcing is on point, I like the completeness-- I'm not feeling wanting. The structure is also very comprehendible and can definitely support a wide audience. Others could find something off in it, but I'm impressed. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 22:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe drop the
"enigmatic"
in"enigmatic ties"
in the lead? When I write, I prefer to avoid adjectives as much as I can to maintain an encyclopedic voice in my mind, but yeah, that's another preference thing!! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 22:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)- On second thought, you can make the necessary edits to the article. dxneo (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for improving the article. However, I think "created by" is a very strong word as exec producers is not equivalent to creator. There might be a creator which hasn't been disclosed yet. Also, why change "archival footages" to singular? dxneo (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Would 'produced by', 'made by', or just a return to 'from' suit the article better? I only changed it from 'from' so it would remind me less of a movie trailer or tv trailer listing the creators in a dramatic voice. But 'footage' can refer to both plural and singular things, 'footages' is the less common version of this saying, sometimes considered non-standard. Others (like me) just think saying 'footage' sounds better than the alternative. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think "from" is fine. Thank you so much mate. dxneo (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- From has returned to form. & nooo thank you!! :> you've got a very fine article here. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 20:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think "from" is fine. Thank you so much mate. dxneo (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Would 'produced by', 'made by', or just a return to 'from' suit the article better? I only changed it from 'from' so it would remind me less of a movie trailer or tv trailer listing the creators in a dramatic voice. But 'footage' can refer to both plural and singular things, 'footages' is the less common version of this saying, sometimes considered non-standard. Others (like me) just think saying 'footage' sounds better than the alternative. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for improving the article. However, I think "created by" is a very strong word as exec producers is not equivalent to creator. There might be a creator which hasn't been disclosed yet. Also, why change "archival footages" to singular? dxneo (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- On second thought, you can make the necessary edits to the article. dxneo (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe drop the
Octave
Hi, nice to see your work again. Here's a few comments on sourcing at the FAC level:
- Suggest standardising reference title casing
- What makes Decider and The South African "high-quality reliable sources"?
- Inconsistent styling of author names, generally it should be "surname, forename(s)" throughout
- Film names should be taken out of quotes and put in italics per MOS:CONFORM, regardless of what the original title was
- Ref 10 is dead for me, url-status should be updated
Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- All addressed, you may double check.
- As for Decider. WP:RSP states that "There is consensus that the New York Post (nypost.com ) and its sub-publications Decider (decider.com ) and Page Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons." Same applies to the South African as it is also marginally reliable. they say there have been plagiarism from wiki in the past, but if this is a new article and i have written both this article and Nandipha's, i would notice any foul play within the references i have used. Thoughts? dxneo (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- The strength of sources needed much higher at FAC than GA: these are the sorts of sources that I would pull up on at FAC if I was doing a source review. Although "marginally" reliable, you need to have a strong rationale that these are not just reliable, but "high-quality". What that means exactly differs from reviewer to reviewer, but the fact that there's enough caution around these to label them marginal is a red flag for me. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'll try to find better sources, but I doubt I'll find with the same content or even better.
Thank you so much, next time go easy on me with the "ref-case" haha! dxneo (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Can't make any promises ;) UpTheOctave! • 8va? 23:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'll try to find better sources, but I doubt I'll find with the same content or even better.
- The strength of sources needed much higher at FAC than GA: these are the sorts of sources that I would pull up on at FAC if I was doing a source review. Although "marginally" reliable, you need to have a strong rationale that these are not just reliable, but "high-quality". What that means exactly differs from reviewer to reviewer, but the fact that there's enough caution around these to label them marginal is a red flag for me. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
