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

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.
	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. Is Glassfire a reliable source? One more one minor issue, please add page numbers to sources that are chapters from longer works, or journal articles.
	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.
	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.
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.
	7. Overall assessment.