Talk:Cult film/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The lad searches the night for his newts (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mostly looks good. I have a few questions. For one, I'd like to see the redlink to the non-existent article anime fandom deleted in some way. Can you link to another relevant article or simply take out the link and leave it as text? Also, I think the lead and image captions should have citations, and the statement "Fritz the Cat (1972) provoked outrage as the first X-rated animated film" is unclear, as "X-rated" means different things in different parts of the world. The meaning of "X rating" in the UK, for example, is not the same as it is in the United States, and in Canada, this film, I believe, is rated either 15 or R. I believe it's also rated 18 or 15 in the UK. What provoked outrage? Was it the depiction of sex, drug use, racism or criticism of left-wing politics? I don't think simply being rated X was enough for the film to provoke outrage. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead doesn't need citations, as the statements are already cited in the article per WP:CITELEAD. I created a redirect for anime fandom that redirects to the proper article. You're right about the MPAA X rating; it's ambiguous to non-Americans. However, simply being X rated is enough to provoke outrage, as that rating was almost exclusively reserved for hardcore pornography. The particulars of why it was rated X (and the associated controversies) are better off discussed in that film's article, I think; it would be undue emphasis to discuss such things here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong. It wasn't too difficult to insert a bit about Fritz's controversy. By the way, the captions are cited where appropriate. If you look at the article, the statements are already cited in the body. The captions merely reiterate what the article body says. Where they don't, they are properly cited. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

At the time Fritz the Cat was released, porno chic was not yet occurring and X wasn't inherently associated with pornography. See for example Midnight Cowboy, Clockwork Orange, etc. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@The lad searches the night for his newts: I think the issue has been resolved, as the Wikipedia article now more closely adheres to what the source says. A discussion of MPAA X ratings and "porno chic" is off-topic both here and in the main article. Not sure where you're going with this. Try looking at the Good Article criteria and raise any issues that you see. This is not a peer review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• The Image: File:The_Creatures_of_the_Night.jpg is a copyrighted image by Olin Mills studio and cannot be used on Wikipedia. I don't even understand why Commons allowed it as that is pretty much Flickr washing the license...but the image clearly shows the copyright registration.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The copyright issues that you've raised are certainly problematic. I guess I shouldn't blindly trust in the Commons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment

The rest of the GA review attempts by The lad searches the night for his newts have long since been closed, as they weren't being based on standard GA criteria. As Mark Miller feels he shouldn't take over this review, the nomination has been returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention from a competent reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)