Plandemic has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 8, 2020 Articles for deletion Kept December 18, 2020 Peer review Not reviewed March 15, 2021 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 8, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Plandemic was criticized for its professional-style production? Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: Documentary / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Documentary films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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 SL93 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of Plandemic: Indoctornation

• ... that BuzzFeed News compared the conspiracy film Plandemic: Indoctornation (logo pictured) with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker? Source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/plandemic-sequel-review
  • ALT1:... that Plandemic was criticized for its professional-style production? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/14/plandemic-movie-discredited-dr-doctor-judy-mikovits-how-debunked-conspiracy-theory-film-went-viral

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hrant Dink Foundation

Improved to Good Article status by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Either hook could be used, but my preference is ALT1. It's so surprising, I had to read it twice – very "hooky". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2nd paragraph, there is the sentence "The video also contributed to the increasing rebellion against health protocols." This is vague and seems like it should be backed up by a credible source. Who says it contributed to the increasing rebellion? By how much did it increase? Is there an article explaining this rebellion we're referring to?

Am I wrong? I don't have a Wikipedia account or know how all of this works. Thank you. 50.237.68.146 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is part of what we call the lede, basically the introduction to the topic. The lede itself does not require citations, as it's meant only to summarize the cited contents of the rest of the article. In this case, the citation is in the third paragraph of the release section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good explanation. In the release section, the most relevant piece of text backing that claim up is "noting that it might have been a major contributor to the lack of compliance towards health protocols". (Emphasis added by me.) Is "might have been" enough to back that up?

If you go to the article it cites, the exact text is as follows:

"Suppose Plandemic had been released right before January 2021, or maybe a day or a week before a major public vaccination? We can now show that disinformation spread would be much harder to gatekeep due to the decentralized nature of information diffusion online, and that, consequently, a significant proportion of the public might resist public health policies. Policy makers, public health officials, and medical information gatekeepers do not yet have the appropriate tools at their disposal to combat these disinformation campaigns, as was the case with Plandemic." (Emphasis added by me.)

The authors are discussing what might have happened if Planedemic had been released at a different time. It seems like a big leap from that sentence to a blanket, apparently factual statement that it definitely "contributed to the increasing rebellion against health protocols." Even if that is just the lede, and thank you for the explanation, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently backed up by the third paragraph of the release section or the article that paragraph cites.

Again, I could be wrong; I'm just going off of what I was taught in college about citing factual claims. Thanks for your time. 67.190.168.101 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply. I have added plausibly to the lede to reflect the plausible nature of the impact as described in the source. GeraldWL 15:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]