Talk:Frank's Cock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Frank's Cock is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 1, 2013.
Did You Know Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 24, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
November 7, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
November 15, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 1, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the award-winning film Frank's Cock is split into quadrants to symbolise the "fragmentation of the body" experienced by those with AIDS?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank's Cock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Right - I'll make comments below. Interesting read and looks pretty polished. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It'd be good if you could avoid using the word "film" in consecutive sentences (1&2 in lead)
  • Thanks Cas. I'll wait for you to finish reviewing before I start working (no need for edit conflicts) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Second film --> production
The two began an older brother-younger brother fantasy and move in together. (past --> present tense in one sentence) - actually the Synopsis section changes from past to present. Best to choose one and align the whole section. Possibly present is better.
  • As the narrative is in the past tense then shifts to the present, this should be reflected in the text. Frank isn't dead at the time of the narrative. That sentence above needs to be fixed, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed the sentence above and changed another place to the present perfect, to better reflect the narrative. It's interesting to read too (and open access). These are my edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually the article is well written (I did read it through once before beginning to post as I had a few screens open and was multitasking) and I have found very little to copyedit. It's an engaging read. I guess the only niggles are there any material on how much it cost to make, any other reflections by participants on making or reception, and what other awards it received around the world. But then again it's only an 8 minute film....otherwise looking good....Over to you, it's late here and I am going to bed. Will take a look in the morning...g'night. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I could contact Hoolboom, but we need previously published stuff. Haven't found much. Experimental films don't seem to have much info on them. I'll check the Google News Archive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Pass or Fail: - a nice read overall, I think the prose works well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Further sources[edit]


Ok, here are some comments on the article. Mainly focusing on prose/readability. Most of it was well written, only a few concerns:

  • "with interspersed scenes from popular culture, gay pornography, and human creation" "human creation" is a bit ambiguous here, does it refer to humans creating things or humans being created?
  • Humans being created, linked to Embryogenesis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "and the narrator fears his loss" I'd suggest "death" instead of "loss" here.
  • Fair enough
  • "The two began an older brother-younger brother fantasy and moved in together." Just so I'm clear: they were playing out an incest fantasy?
  • Check out the script if you want, but yeah, that's an implication. I'm guessing that it included some of the platonic aspects of brotherhood (sticking up for each other and whatnot) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You probably want to cite the quotes in "Synopsis".
  • You might want to note Vancouver in the first paragraph of "Production"
  • "The Canadian director Mike Hoolboom was diagnosed with HIV in 1988 or 1989, after going to donate blood." Just to be sure, it was found that he had aids after he donated, or he got aids during the donation process?
  • During the process. Waugh (p. 316) has a good quote on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Upon his friend's suggestion, Hoolboom began work on a script for "a real movie"" Who is being quoted here?
  • I ended up with "Upon his friend's suggestion, Hoolboom began work on a script for what the source dubbed "a real movie", one which portrayed an AIDS patient as one full of love and not one that showed the patient's friends abandoning him.", which is quite long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "with the short Hoolboom's first venture at directly addressing the AIDS issue." I think it might be better to note this earlier in the article.
  • How's this?
  • "James Twentyman wrote that the film was "relatively straightforward" but strong and provocative, emphasising the "soul-bearing" nature of the monologue.[21] Rush and Baughman write that" You have "wrote ... write" here, might want to try for better word choice.
  • Write --> found.
  • Similar situation here: "The Canadian Filmmakers' Distribution Centre, which has distribution rights for the film, notes further awards at the Interfilm Festival in Berlin and at the Big Muddy Film Festival in Carbondale, Illinois (both 1995),[25] while Hoolboom notes that it received an honourable mention".
  • Ok, that's all I saw on my first read-through, good work. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Some of the graphics seem pornographic. Is that appropriate content for Wikipedia?Kerry (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate your concern, but the image depicted is considered essential to help readers understand the imagery of the film. Please see Wikipedia is not censored to see how "objectionable material" is handled on Wikipedia. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This imagery only shocks and appalls. There is nothing essential about it. Ridiculous and clearly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

  • It is a screenshot of a film showing its visual style, which is extensively discussed in the text. It easily meets the criteria for use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, however the images on the Wikipedia gay pornography article itself are not as pornographic. It seems it's not essential to the understanding of the imagery of gay pornography to include graphic images on this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not an article on gay pornography. It is an article on a film which features gay pornography, a film which has an entire quadrant dedicated to said pornography. Having all four quadrants active at once is the only one which provides EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Home media[edit]

The article contains no information on home media releases of this film. How would I go about watching this? How did the article's author watch the film? Beerest 2 talk 21:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • There is no indication that the film was released on home media (as a short film, if anything had been released it would have been in an omnibus). We can rent the film from the Canadian Filmmakers' Distribution Centre, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page talk discussion[edit]

Interesting Main Page talk discussion, at permalink.

Placed here for future reference.


Cirt (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)