Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Boys in the Sand/2

Boys in the Sand[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Promote After more than a month at GAR, the article has received one opposition and one support !vote. Reviewer has offered helpful comments, most of which have been positively addressed by the nominator. Remaining issues noted in the review and by opposer, however, do not appear supported by the good article criteria. Analysis of this article against the GA criteria is as follows: (1) Article prose is clear and grammatically correct; (2) Reliable references and accompanying citations are provided (policy does not establish a "too few references" threshold; article has, among others, seven book references. Books are generally interpreted as preferable to web sources. There is no apparent OR; (3) Article covers production, plot, reception and release/sequel. This appears to adequately satisfy the criterion of being broad (note that GA does not require comprehensiveness: e.g. there is no cast section requirement (cast information is present in the infobox); (4) neutrality is not disputed (5) stability is not disputed; (6) GA does not require images. One image has been provided to facilitate identification. Additional images would be fair use and, therefore, subject to the high threshold of inclusion established by NFCC. Additionally, images - especially from a film of this genre - do not appear necessary to facilitate understanding. Miscellaneous requests, such as more external links, are not supported or even contradicted by guidelines/policy. Article appears to meet GA criteria. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading the assessment correctly, the alleged issues with the article are 1) it is "too short"; 2) it "lacks details about much of anything outside the film's storyline"; 3) it has too few sources. There is no minimum length requirement for GA articles, so "too short" is not a reason to fail the article. The article has details of the filmmaker's inspiration, casting, shooting location and dates, budget, the replacement of a cast member, premiere, promotional campaign, profits, public response, critical response, cultural impact, impact on its star and his career, sequel and DVD release. Repeated requests for feedback on what additional details are supposedly needed garnered no response. The article has 27 notes from 15 different sources, which seems sufficient to address any fears that someone some day might question the article's neutrality. Otto4711 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: As the one who technically failed it, I agree that the article has good points, but needs fixing. First of all, there is no Cast section, which would be greatly appreciated. Second, there should only be references to the sequel in the sequel section, it is useless to put in the infobox if there's no article on it. Also, the headings could be more centered, such as "Release" and "Reception". Third, he article could use more internet references, spcifcally for production and reception issues. Lastly, the film could use more external links, this would serve better closure than just one link. If these things are fixed, the article could reach GA status. Limetolime (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have to say that I don't understand this comment at all. The entire cast of four is listed in the infobox and all of the cast members are mentioned by name in the plot summary. None of them have character names (the film has no dialogue). A separate cast section seems unnecessary. Of course if that were the only thing standing between this and GA then add it, but is it really needed? Is having the sequel mentioned in the infobox really an issue? Because I have no objection to its being removed. I don't know what "could use more internet references" means. I would also be interested in what external links you would suggest and what GA criterion the lack of external links falls under. Otto4711 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~: The article needs an expanded discussion of the historical context of the film within the porno industry. You have cited more sources, but you have not added much narrative text into the article to dicuss this. You should summarize or quote sources that assess the film's place in the history of porn. As I suggested before, perhaps some more general Wikipedia articles on the porno industry would contain all the history and references that you need to cobble together a good paragraph that gives a historical and literary context for the film. Right now you have a "production" section and a critical reception section. It seems to me that there should also be an analysis section about the historical context of the film and where the film's themes and techniques fit into that historical context. Since I looked before, the discussion of the interracial controversy issue in Part III has been deleted, which I though was very interesting. If this was historically important, a discussion of the context of that should be included, and it should be in the background or an analysis section rather than in the plot section. Also, some of the info in the Plot summary in part I is still analytical/historical and should go in the history or analysis section. The article needs more illustrations. Or if the controversy at the time of the release of the film resulted in news images, there might be a historically important fair use image. There must me illustrations in some of the sources you cite. Perhaps one of the authors would give you permission to use an image under the GDFL license. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing does not appear to exist regarding the interracial issue, which is why I removed it per WP:OR. I know that such pairings were controversial, but absent sourcing that discusses it the information should not be included in the article. What specific information do you believe should be moved from the plot section to another section? Honestly, I think that the insistence on a "historical context" section may be asking more of the article than GA standards require. As far as illustrations go, I have to point out again that the GA criteria do not require a minimum number of images. Otto4711 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - About Boys in the Sand and the history of porn - that's perhaps an issue of how broad a GA should be? I'd like to see some sourcing about "Suddenly, out in the water, in a filmic moment that would become iconic..." - that it really did become iconic, and isn't hyperbole. -Malkinann (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Edmonson book includes the line "In that moment Cal Culver as Casey Donovan achieved a kind of immortality." (p. 76) Would you consider that sufficient reference for the iconic statement? If not do you have a suggestion on how to re-word it to tone it down? Re the broadness issue, I did in response to the concern about the film's place in porn history add a sourced comment about its contributing to porno chic along with a link to the article. There's this interview with the director of Inside Deep Throat in which he calls BITS "very much a precursor" to Deep Throat. This source includes regarding the film "in years to come gay porn historians would rhapsodise about the 10-minute sequence in which Donovan walks to the mailbox, posts a letter, and then plays with his dog. 'As if Bo Widerberg and Ken Russell got together to make an honest hardcore homo flick', gushed one critic." Is this enough stuff to cobble together in a small section to get past this issue? Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added, in an effort to create a "place in porn history" section, the following: The film's mainstream popularity helped usher in the era of "porno chic,"[13] a brief period of mainstream cultural acceptability afforded hardcore pornographic film, having been cited as "very much a precursor" to the following year's crossover success of Deep Throat.[16][17] The film would continue to attract critical and scholarly attention from pornography historians and researchers for years after its release.[18] The film is credited with beginning the trend of giving pornographic films titles that spoof the names of non-porn films.[3] Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly helpful. I have removed my opposition the reassessment, although I still have trouble believing that the article is comprehensive: given all the references available for it, I would think that there is more to say. I also imagine you could get permission to use an image from one of your sources if you tried. As for the word "iconic", I suggest quoting the reference instead of generalizing. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA standard isn't "comprehensive." It's "broad." As for "iconic," I'm just taking out the sentence since it's so problematic. But thanks for removing your objection. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in the past reviews, issues that have been brought up are tone, clarity, reference formatting, not covering enough of the scholarship (Poole's biography), not enough real-world info (more than just a plotline). I believe most of these issues have been addressed, although Poole's biography, if it's believed it would be useful, might be referenced in a Further reading section, which "See also" seems to cover at present? -Malkinann (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I have added his book to the see also section. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support GA status. I have read the article and the comments, and I think the editor did an outstanding job to come up with the sources he did, despite the notability (notoriety) of the film. People generally didn't want to be quoted concerning gay porno films in those days. - Dan (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]