A script has been used to generate a semi-
automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
house style; it can be found on the
automated peer review page for January 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to get it and its four sibling lists to
Featured List status. This is the second of the five to be put up for peer review and I believe it comes close to if not already meets the FL criteria.
The cutoff point is explained in the lead. It's based on the date that "
The Puppy Episode" aired, which is identified as a fairly definitive "before and after" point regarding LGBT-themed television imagery.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Honestly I am very strongly opposed to the use of non-standard keyboard characters in article and category titles so, unless promotion to FL hinges on it, I would rather not introduce an en-dash into the article title. I understand that the move will leave a redirect at the hyphenated version but I'd still rather hold off.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
As Featured lists are required to comply with the MOS yes, it should be moved. Also, a redirect will be automatically created, so you don't have to worry about article access being limited.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
"A list of 1990s American television episodes with LGBT themes includes a number that" FLs don't start like this anymore. Think of something more engaging, like that of your
other list.
"representation of same-sex sexual or affectional displays lagged well behind the behaviour in which mixed-sex pairs engaged." Citation?
"3rd Rock From the Sun"-->3rd Rock from the Sun
"Jason Priestly"-->Jason Priestley
"Ian Zeiring"-->Ian Ziering
Several links need to be disambiguated.
"Ru Paul" One word
"Ned and Stacey" Should use an ampersand.
"Natalija Nogulich"-->Natalia Nogulich
"Julia Louis-Dreyfuss"-->Julia Louis-Dreyfus
"Leap Year" I am not sure this should be capitalized.
"X-Files" Shouldn't it be The X-Files?
All three images need stronger fair use rationales. "identification and critical commentary" is too vague.
I believe that the Becker quote serves as reasonable citation for the PDA issue. I'll work on re-working the lead, although it is I hope it stands a bit better than "This is a list of...".
Otto4711 (
talk)
03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
All of them, as they use mostly the same
fair use rationale. Some of the entered items are rather weak. For example,
File:Rosekiss.jpg's no-replacement rationale is a bit weak. Instead of "no free image can be created", perhaps "the scene depicted would be impossible to replace with a free image of similar accuracy" or something like that. Also, I don't think the article meets
NFC criterion 3a for minimal use. As you said, there are six non-free images. I don't think that they are all necessary. For example,
File:2ndkiss.jpg and
File:Rosekiss.jpg both show women kissing (both in a dark night); I don't see why both are necessary.
File:The Simpsons 4F11.png, I'm not sure what the justfication of using the image is. Is John gay? You need to identify things like this in every image.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I can certainly reword the FU rationales. What I'm trying to do with these images (and those in other articles) is identify and commentate on those episodes which have some level of significance. 2ndkiss is the first of the "lesbian kiss episodes" that I talk about in the introduction and caused a furor. Rosekiss is from
Don't Ask, Don't Tell and also caused a ruckus. Same with the kiss from
Sugar & Spice. The image from
The One with the Lesbian Wedding is both an early example of a same-sex commitment ceremony and includes
Candace Gingrich who is the lesbian half-sister of then-Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich. The remaining two images may not have the same sort of impact or significance but given that the list currently contains over 70 entries I don't think six images is an overload.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
"Where you can barely see anything" is exactly why the image is significant. The scene was originally shot with higher lighting but CBS, fearing backlash, forced the producers to re-shoot the scene using the lowered lighting. This is discussed at the article for the episode (linked above) in more detail than what I feel is appropriate for a list article, although I can add additional info if required. Many of the
lesbian kiss episodes didn't result in a fuss but these all did so images of them seem reasonable.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I feel that all of the kiss images are significant and reasonable under WP guidelines so I guess we're at loggerheads. If removal of an image becomes the make-or-break to promoting the list to FL status then I'll reconsider but as things stand I believe the images are reasonable.
Otto4711 (
talk)
20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I asked
around. For convenience, here are the six non-free images:
Being pointed here from elswhere, I strongly discourage the use of the images as currently in the list (and listed above), as this would be akin to episode list articles. On the other hand, I can see exactly one non-free image in the intro/lede showing a critical episode/scene supporting the LGBT theme of the list. (I don't know about the rest, but I would disclude the Simpsons image from this). --
MASEM20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I also was referred here from
WP:MCQ. The problem with the images is that Wikipedia’s
non-free content policy strongly discourages the use of unlicensed images. Among its restrictions, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” None of the images is necessary for readers’ understanding. As for use in the lead, although one logo and cover art image is generally accepted for the purpose of “identification” in the leads of articles on organizations, CDs, DVDs, etc, even that does not work for this article, for the image would not “identify” the abstract topic. I have proposed
File:1991 Beverly Hills 90210.jpg for deletion as a test case. —
teb728tc06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Yeah, well, you're wrong. The images here significantly do contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic because they serve as exemplars of how LGBT images on television have been presented and in most cases how LGBT images have been subject to censure or actual censorship. This discussion mirrors the censorious discussions had by bigoted TV executives who either ordered that same-sex affectional shots be cut completely or that they be re-shot or re-edited so as to make the content invisible or obscured. I had kind of hoped that 10+ years after the fact we had progressed beyond that sort of bias but I guess not.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
A script has been used to generate a semi-
automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
house style; it can be found on the
automated peer review page for January 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working to get it and its four sibling lists to
Featured List status. This is the second of the five to be put up for peer review and I believe it comes close to if not already meets the FL criteria.
The cutoff point is explained in the lead. It's based on the date that "
The Puppy Episode" aired, which is identified as a fairly definitive "before and after" point regarding LGBT-themed television imagery.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Honestly I am very strongly opposed to the use of non-standard keyboard characters in article and category titles so, unless promotion to FL hinges on it, I would rather not introduce an en-dash into the article title. I understand that the move will leave a redirect at the hyphenated version but I'd still rather hold off.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
As Featured lists are required to comply with the MOS yes, it should be moved. Also, a redirect will be automatically created, so you don't have to worry about article access being limited.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
"A list of 1990s American television episodes with LGBT themes includes a number that" FLs don't start like this anymore. Think of something more engaging, like that of your
other list.
"representation of same-sex sexual or affectional displays lagged well behind the behaviour in which mixed-sex pairs engaged." Citation?
"3rd Rock From the Sun"-->3rd Rock from the Sun
"Jason Priestly"-->Jason Priestley
"Ian Zeiring"-->Ian Ziering
Several links need to be disambiguated.
"Ru Paul" One word
"Ned and Stacey" Should use an ampersand.
"Natalija Nogulich"-->Natalia Nogulich
"Julia Louis-Dreyfuss"-->Julia Louis-Dreyfus
"Leap Year" I am not sure this should be capitalized.
"X-Files" Shouldn't it be The X-Files?
All three images need stronger fair use rationales. "identification and critical commentary" is too vague.
I believe that the Becker quote serves as reasonable citation for the PDA issue. I'll work on re-working the lead, although it is I hope it stands a bit better than "This is a list of...".
Otto4711 (
talk)
03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
All of them, as they use mostly the same
fair use rationale. Some of the entered items are rather weak. For example,
File:Rosekiss.jpg's no-replacement rationale is a bit weak. Instead of "no free image can be created", perhaps "the scene depicted would be impossible to replace with a free image of similar accuracy" or something like that. Also, I don't think the article meets
NFC criterion 3a for minimal use. As you said, there are six non-free images. I don't think that they are all necessary. For example,
File:2ndkiss.jpg and
File:Rosekiss.jpg both show women kissing (both in a dark night); I don't see why both are necessary.
File:The Simpsons 4F11.png, I'm not sure what the justfication of using the image is. Is John gay? You need to identify things like this in every image.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I can certainly reword the FU rationales. What I'm trying to do with these images (and those in other articles) is identify and commentate on those episodes which have some level of significance. 2ndkiss is the first of the "lesbian kiss episodes" that I talk about in the introduction and caused a furor. Rosekiss is from
Don't Ask, Don't Tell and also caused a ruckus. Same with the kiss from
Sugar & Spice. The image from
The One with the Lesbian Wedding is both an early example of a same-sex commitment ceremony and includes
Candace Gingrich who is the lesbian half-sister of then-Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich. The remaining two images may not have the same sort of impact or significance but given that the list currently contains over 70 entries I don't think six images is an overload.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
"Where you can barely see anything" is exactly why the image is significant. The scene was originally shot with higher lighting but CBS, fearing backlash, forced the producers to re-shoot the scene using the lowered lighting. This is discussed at the article for the episode (linked above) in more detail than what I feel is appropriate for a list article, although I can add additional info if required. Many of the
lesbian kiss episodes didn't result in a fuss but these all did so images of them seem reasonable.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I feel that all of the kiss images are significant and reasonable under WP guidelines so I guess we're at loggerheads. If removal of an image becomes the make-or-break to promoting the list to FL status then I'll reconsider but as things stand I believe the images are reasonable.
Otto4711 (
talk)
20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I asked
around. For convenience, here are the six non-free images:
Being pointed here from elswhere, I strongly discourage the use of the images as currently in the list (and listed above), as this would be akin to episode list articles. On the other hand, I can see exactly one non-free image in the intro/lede showing a critical episode/scene supporting the LGBT theme of the list. (I don't know about the rest, but I would disclude the Simpsons image from this). --
MASEM20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I also was referred here from
WP:MCQ. The problem with the images is that Wikipedia’s
non-free content policy strongly discourages the use of unlicensed images. Among its restrictions, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” None of the images is necessary for readers’ understanding. As for use in the lead, although one logo and cover art image is generally accepted for the purpose of “identification” in the leads of articles on organizations, CDs, DVDs, etc, even that does not work for this article, for the image would not “identify” the abstract topic. I have proposed
File:1991 Beverly Hills 90210.jpg for deletion as a test case. —
teb728tc06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Yeah, well, you're wrong. The images here significantly do contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic because they serve as exemplars of how LGBT images on television have been presented and in most cases how LGBT images have been subject to censure or actual censorship. This discussion mirrors the censorious discussions had by bigoted TV executives who either ordered that same-sex affectional shots be cut completely or that they be re-shot or re-edited so as to make the content invisible or obscured. I had kind of hoped that 10+ years after the fact we had progressed beyond that sort of bias but I guess not.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply