Talk:Flaming Creatures/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Hinnk (talk · contribs) 08:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and complete the review in the next couple days, but it may be delayed to Saturday due to the US holiday - just wanted to let you know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hinnk, just a few minor things to address in 2a and then I think we can wrap this one up! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! The remaining issues should be fixed this weekend. The 1001 Movies source was added by another editor so I need to find a copy of it, and then I'll finish looking into those other two sources. hinnk (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard! Congrats to Hinnk and any other editors who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've made prose tweaks myself to save us both time; if there are any you object to, just let me know. No major issues - pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Where absent, please add the full first names for authors (such as Hoberman, J.) Not done, Hoberman is generally known and credited as just J. Hoberman (likewise for P. Adams Sitney). Fair enough, sounds good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] In general the sources in 'Sources' appear reliable, with one question, namely: What is the Leffingwell/Kismaric/Heiferman source, exactly? They are given as editors - who is the author? Is it a collection of Smith's writings? Or something else? It's a collection of writings by many authors. Focusing on Flaming Creatures? What kinds of backgrounds do the authors have? Focusing on Jack Smith I think, but yes. Going off of this retailer, contributors include artist Nayland Blake, critic J. Hoberman, critic/curator Edward Leffingwell, curator Lawrence Rinder, and writer/director Ronald Tavel. I don't have a copy on hand, but if you'd like a more detailed breakdown I can get it from the library this weekend. hinnk (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] That's ok, based on what you say it should be reliable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Cite 15 (All Things Considered) needs improvement. Who was presenting? Who wrote the segment? Is there a transcript or recording available somewhere? Added the reporter's name and a URL. In general, please add author and publisher links to all citations currently missing them, such as Kris Needs or Edward Leffingwell. Done. The American Conservative has no consensus on reliability per WP:RSN. I think in the context it's being used for (sharing Pat Buchanan's opinion) it's ok, but if you can find a more reliable source discussing the impact of the film on Fortas' nomination, that would be preferable. Replaced Buchanan's piece with a recent book that discusses his involvement. hinnk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Is Glassfire a reliable source? It seems like it meets the criteria. The author is independently notable as a writer, and Glasstire looks like an established publication with a professional editorial team. hinnk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] One more one minor issue, please add page numbers to sources that are chapters from longer works, or journal articles. I've gone through all the references and added page numbers where they were missing. All the journal articles had page numbers though, so I wonder if I'm misunderstanding. hinnk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Issues addressed, pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reliable sources (other than note on American Conservative above) - assuming that will be discussed, provisional pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig turns up nothing of concern, but most sources in the article are inaccessible to it, so hold for manual spot check. Spot checked 4 sources I could access online, no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything else substantial missing. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail or signs of coatracking. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No major issues, any minor tweaks can be handled in prose review. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues or edit wars. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use poster is ok, as is non-copyrightable flyer - images are suitable. Good work finding illustrations! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No major issues, any minor tweaks can be handled in prose review. Well-illustrated.
	7. Overall assessment.