Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Free Ride/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:39, 21 March 2012.

A Free Ride

 * Nominator(s):  Supernova Explosion   Talk  02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article, which is currently a GA, covers the topic properly.  Supernova Explosion   Talk  02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: Not my usual subject, I admit, but once I started reading I couldn't, er, stop. The article seems rather brief, which gives me pause.  This was promoted to GA two days ago (March 10), and there was no peer review or external copy-editing that I can see.  If anything, I think a copy-edit is needed; some examples from the lead:
 * The film is the subject of disputes over a number of issues -- clunky and perhaps overly wordy, "the subject of a number of disputes"?
 * Done. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While most sources consider A Free Ride a 1915 film, a few scholars claimed the film was produced in 1923, a claim that is rejected. Who? When was it rejected?  This is complicated by the tense changes, I think: "most sources consider" -- present tense -- "a few scholars claimed" -- past -- "is rejected" -- present?
 * Fixed the sentence. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * while others claiming the opposite is true. -- claim?
 * Changed to "asserting". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "While others asserting" doesn't make any sense either; it should be either "claim" or "assert", not "claiming" or "asserting". María ( yllo submarine ) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Other random comments:
 * I'm a little confused by the assertion that the film was "screened", but no other information is given. I thought screening was a rather public affair, but if its release was kept underground, how did that work?  Or am I reading it incorrectly?
 * Changed to "shown to its target audience". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Another prose issue, I see a lot of repetition, especially in the "Analysis" section: "shows... shows" and "uses humor... using humorous", for example.
 * Fixed. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the brief comments, but like I said above the article itself is rather brief. I'm surprised that there isn't more thematic or historical analysis, especially if this film is as notable as what is stated. Have the sources been truly exhausted? I see that a variety of book sources have been used, but what about academic journals, like Film History and Film Quarterly? If you have it, JSTOR may be useful, as well as general research databases that have access to film journals. Until I know that such sources have been taken into account, I'm afraid I can't support. María ( yllo submarine ) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is coverage in journals, but I don't have access to them. Filled request in WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. After the journals are added, I think it will be worthy of FA. Thanks for the suggestions! -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Added two journals, expanded. Please review again. Thanks! -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll re-review in a bit. However, I've removed the "done" template you included above per instructions at WP:FAC: "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as ✅ and ❌ ) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." María ( yllo  submarine ) 16:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I still believe a copy-edit from a knowledgeable editor is needed; the issues I noted above are only examples (see updated note above), and work is needed throughout. As I stated yesterday, a PR would have been useful in this regard and others -- I don't advise jumping straight to FAC from GAC unless you have an FA or two under your belt. It's quite possible that these issues (prose and comprehensiveness) could have been addressed before you nominated at FAC.
 * Further comments from Maria

It's great that you were able to track down two journal articles so quickly, but did you check elsewhere outside of Google Scholar? I see an article listed at JSTOR by Frank A. Hoffmann ("Prolegomena to a Study of Traditional Elements in the Erotic Film", The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 78, No. 308 (Apr. - Jun., 1965), pp. 143-148), and while Hoffmann is referred to in the article, the source for his assertion is Thompson. I'm guessing this is the article referenced, since it states: The article currently states: This interpretation seems to be confusing Hoffmann's assertion, but it may merely be the wording: "professionalism" is strange for me (as opposed to "relative smoothness of production") and "that this genre was experimented" has funky syntax (compared to "experiments in the genre must have" occurred). So, again, perhaps a copy-edit can help with this particular problem, but so will consulting the original source (i.e., Hoffmann). I haven't checked if there are similar issues with other sources.
 * the movie's "relative smoothness of production shows clearly that experiments in the genre must have been carried on for some years before that time." (pg. 143).
 * "Thomspson believes that University at Buffalo professor Frank A. Hoffman's assertion, that this genre was experimented in the years preceding this film's production date, was based on the professionalism in A Free Ride." ("Analysis")

If you don't have access to Hoffmann's article, I can send it to you if you'd like. María ( yllo submarine ) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please send me a copy of the article. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  17:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Crisco 1492 comment as GA reviewer:
 * Hi Supernova, I have to agree with Maria that you should have had a peer review and good copyedit before going to FA... as is probably evident from my own FA nominations, I have trouble fulfilling 1a. Regarding the "funky syntax" for "that this genre was experimented", I tried changing to something which flowed more smoothly but was reverted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Crisco, I reverted that edit because your edit indicated the director himself experimented stag films before making A Free Ride, while Hoffman is saying various directors experimented stag films, so this genre was nothing new to the director of A Free Ride. Anyway, I've changed the syntax to make it better, hope the new sentence is ok. If you still believe the sentence can be made better, please go ahead. Thanks! -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I had assumed that's what your phrasing was intending. The new syntax looks much better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Supernova, I sent you the article. I also made a minor change; "is an evidence" made it worse, but I believe this is an improvement.  You can always seek help from experienced copy-editors at WP:GOCE if need be.  1a is a tricky thing, and it always helps to have a few pairs of eyes looking over your shoulder -- no matter your how many FACs you've attempted.  María ( yllo  submarine ) 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sending the article! -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can try to do a copyedit of this over the next couple days. Note that I try to avoid supporting articles on the basis of my copyedits though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking a run through now, sorry if I got too adventurous. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all thank you a lot for the long-awaited copyedit. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "It has been suggested that the cast were drawn from among the lowest stratum of the society" who suggested this? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote from Thompson (p. 39-40): "a common thread that runs through many casual histories of early erotics film insists that the actors were drawn from the lowest end of the social spectrum". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to put it exactly in the article. Wording it "casual history" will result in close paraphrasing concern, I'm afraid. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at rephrasing it. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about: "Thompson notes that some historical accounts of pornographic films suggested that...". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  05:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "A Free Ride is thought to have first been shown to its target audience in 1915." Who thinks this?
 * The quote from Spencer (p.85), "the first known pornographic film (the little seen but suggestively titled A Free Ride) screened in 1915". I think the phrasing "...thought to" is wrong, changing it to straightforward assertion. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "In addition to sexual intercourse, the film shows fellatio, troilism, and urolagnia." This doesn't really seem to flow with the preceding and following sentences.
 * Agree. Should the sentence be removed or moved to another position? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Despite the primitive nature of movies like A Free Ride, in a short period of time, stag films became, as observed by O'Toole, "rigidified into a restricted visual experience". is there a good way to rephrase this with less commas? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, it looks like the prose is moving in the right direction! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Are the following references worthy of addition? (Since I'm not sure about their reliability, asking for second opinion)
 * Tony Perrottet, Good Old-Fashioned Porn, The Smart Set,
 * Tim Dirks, History of Sex in Cinema, Filmsite.org. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  05:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This is also a long way from my normal area of specialty (military history), but what the hey. It's an interesting article, but its prose and content seem unpolished at the moment, and I agree that it would benefit from an intensive copy edit and comments from editors familiar with writing about films. My comments are:
 * " It runs nine minutes and depicts a motorist who picks up two women from the roadside and later engages in several sex acts with them" - surely the content of the film is more important than its running time
 * Done, Removed the running time from lede per your comment. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Although most scholars consider A Free Ride a 1915 film, some claim that it was produced in 1923" - this is a bit awkwardly written
 * Rephrased "Although most scholars consider A Free Ride a 1915 film, some sources claim that it was produced in 1923." If you have any better suggestion, please tell. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Since the identities of the cast were kept secret, various theories have emerged regarding their identities" - the article only identifies two theories (1. that the actors were riff raff and 2. that they were upper class - which is later mentioned in the lead anyway)
 * Done. Clarified only two theories are there. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Since the identities of the cast were kept secret, two contradictory theories have emerged regarding their identities" is rather repetitive. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "D. W. Griffith is sometimes credited as directing A Free Ride, a claim that is rejected by film historian Kevin Brownlow and author Dave Thompson." - who claims that he was the director?
 * The quote from Thompson (p.39)]: It also gave rise to some remarkably inventive theories regarding the film's origin, including one that describes it ("unfairly," writes Brownlow) as one of D.W. Griffith's early works. It isn't, although the notion is extraordinarily entertaining." So Thompson doesn't name the source, so I can't mention any name per WP:V. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In response you your comments here and in regards to the similar points I raise, my underlying concern (which I should have made clearer) is that the repeated hints at other works about this film in Thompson's book you've quoted strongly suggest that there's scope for further research to develop this article (in that it doesn't currently appear to reflect all noteworthy references on the film). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have used all the references available to me, including the books, journals, news articles found in Google, and the references listed in those sources. I've added two new references. No more source is found that can be used in the article. So WP:RS forces us to stop in the current form. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Thompson notes that some historical accounts of pornographic films have suggested that the cast were drawn from among the lowest stratum of the society such as the homeless, drug addicts, mentally ill, prostitutes, and petty criminals" - what were these accounts? (and can they be used as references?)
 * The quote from Thompson (p. 39-40): "a common thread that runs through many casual histories of early erotics film insists that the actors were drawn from the lowest end of the social spectrum". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Thompson argues that this claim has almost no documentary evidence, and suggests that the actors were likely drawn from the upper stratum of society." - does he have any documentary evidence to support this view? (the words 'almost no' stick out here)
 * Quote from Thompson (p.40): "A common thread that runs through many casual histories of early erotic films insistes that the actors were drawn from the lowest end of the social spectrum - the homeless, the mentally ill, drug addicts, prostitutes, petty criminals and the like. But there is little documentary evidence for this claim. Indeed, there is much to suggest that the opposite was more likely, with the sheer novelty of the movies undoubtedly playing its part in the lure." What change are you suggesting? Please elaborate. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The text in the article implies that the sources Thompson was disagreeing with were writing specifically about this film ("Thompson notes that some historical accounts of pornographic films have suggested that the cast were drawn...", when it appears that he was making a generic statement about these films as a whole. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I get the point. I have made appropriate changes to reflect it. Hope it is ok now. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Thompson believes that the evidence presented to support the later production date is shoddy, but notes that some other experts agree with Brownlow's assertion." - who are these "other experts"?
 * Thompson does not mention any name. See page 38. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Evidence cited in support of a 1923 production date include the similarity of the women's hairstyle to that of Mary Pickford, an actress who dominated American film industry during the 1920s. They claim that the woman wore a Pickford-style wig. " - the second sentence largely repeats material in the first, and who the 'they' are is unclear.
 * Done. Changed "they > proponents of the later date". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "the Victorian moral views of the era.[10] Like other pornographic films of that era" - using 'era' twice in two consecutive sentences is a bit repetitive
 * Fixed. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  08:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "and finally hard-core scenes in a fragmented manner." there seem to be some missing words here
 * Source: Lewis, p.196) "All three films open with rudimentary narrative frames and, after a brief gesture to a more conventional cinema, segue into considerable, fragmentary hard-core imagery." --[[User:SupernovaExplosion| Supernova Explosion ]  Talk  11:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "However, like other stag films from the 1910s, this film is of superior quality than its predecessors" - this is a bit confusing given that the article states that this is believed to be the first commercial pornographic film
 * Why is it confusing? It is saying this film is superior compared to previous stag films, not previous commercial stag films. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the film didn't have any predecessors as such, this should be specified (eg, "However, like other stag films from the 1910s, this film is of superior quality than the amateur pornography which preceded it" or something along those lines). Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "University at Buffalo professor Frank A. Hoffman asserts that the ease with which the film was produced indicates that there had been previous experimentation with stag films" - how does he know how difficult the film was to produce given that the article basically says that almost nothing is known about its development.
 * Per WP:V, only his assertion, that is published in a reliable source, is mentioned in the article. He does not elaborate how does he know the production process. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but by "whose relative smoothness of production" I think that he's referring to the firm's production standards (eg, its 'look and feel'), rather than how it actually came into existence. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "A Free Ride is one of the most conspicuous films of the 1910s" - what's meant by "conspicuous" here? Do you mean "best known" or "most famous"?
 * The references uses the term "prominent film". What do you suggest to use? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Best known" seems the most appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " the conversation and the action was done by " - "done by" is a bit awkward.
 * p.39: "In her version, it is the landscape and trees that converse and cavort!" What wording do you suggest? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  11:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Thompson notes that in the remake there were no actors. Instead, the events of the movie were represented by "the landscape and trees"." perhaps? (though this is a bit wordy) Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Done. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If the film is PD, you could include some stills from it to illustrate the article (for instance, showing how the actors were disguised). Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm using VLC to play the video, and using ctrl+alt+s to take screenshot. But it is not working. I have no idea how to take stills. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Press "Video" then "Snapshot" and VLC will save the image for you, probably in "My Pictures" on the computer. Works both when the film is running and paused. SatenikTamar (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have used two stills from the movie. Hope the article is much improved now. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are very well chosen. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to Nick-D All of your points are addressed. Re-review the article and re-assess your vote. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you haven't addressed all my points: my concern that the article doesn't draw on all the available sources stands, and I've responded to a few points above. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have used all the references available to me, including the books, journals, news articles found in Google, and the references listed in those sources. I've added two new references. No more source is found that can be used in the article. So WP:RS forces us to stop in the current form. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now all of your points are addressed. Have a fresh look. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that this is a short article (which is basically fair enough: it covers an ancient 9-minute long film produced in totally obscure circumstances), I remain concerned that it alludes to the availability of additional sources which might be useful for expanding the article but doesn't make use of these. Does Thompson provide no clues about who he's referencing? (in the bibliography if not the notes). The article is probably FA class now, but it would benefit from further content. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thompson provides only two references regarding the chapter where he discusses A Free Ride: 1. Brownlow, Kevin (1990), Behind the Mask of Innocence (p. 28), and, 2. Hoffmann, Frank A. (1965), "Prolegomena to a Study of Traditional Elements in the Erotic Film", The Journal of American Folklore. Both of these references are included in the article. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. His notes are rather sparse from the bit of the book available through Google Books. I'm happy to now Support this nomination, though I assume that you'll add extra material if you you come across further sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  09:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Very interesting article! As a huge fan of classic films, I find it bizarre. I honestly didn't know they made porn so early. Anyway, that kind of leads into my comment. I find this to be a big exaggeration: "A Free Ride is one of the best known films of the 1910s". I see that it is sourced, but even if one writer (Nicola Simson) is claiming this, I'd still argue that she is exaggerating. I'm always reading about films, and I'd never even heard of this before now. It only has 73 votes on IMDB - it doesn't even feature in the top 250 most voted on films of the decade. I think this claim should be removed. -- Lobo (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the claim is published in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. in Wikipedia, academic journals are considered the finest source. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  01:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Supernova, very true, academic journals are great. However, for them to be "considered the finest source" they must be attributed correctly.  This is actually what Simson's article states:
 * "'By the early 1910s, American and French pom films were making their way around Europe and the United States. These films were considered slightly more sophisticated than their predecessors—at the very least, they had some semblance of a plot and/or characters. Owing to a prudish moral code carried over from the Victorian Era, however, it was nearly impossible to find these films in public theatres. For the most part, 'stag films' were shown in 'smoking rooms', brothels and private men's clubs, and were available through specialty catalogues. Prominent films from this period include A Free Ride (also known as A Grass Sandwich, USA, 1915) and Am Abend (Germany, ca. 1910).'"
 * That is from page 642, which is cited several times in the article. The bolded portion is the only mention of A Free Ride on this page.  This really, really bothers me because again -- similar to what I found above re: Hoffmann's assertion -- you are misinterpreting a source.  Simson does not say that A Free Ride is "one of the best known films of the 1910s" -- rather, Simson is stating A Free Ride was a "prominent" stag film of that decade.  There's a big, huge difference, which leads me to question other claims made in the article.  Until each and every source is checked, I'm afraid I have to Oppose this nomination. María ( yllo  submarine ) 13:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, I mistakenly omitted the "stag" part. I have rectified the problem: "A Free Ride was a well-known stag film of the 1910s". I can assure you I've checked the other sources very well. Please clarify if you believe there is any problem with any other source and point out that source. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's two glaring source issues that have come to light during the course of this FAC. Similar to copy-editing, your own spot-checking isn't enough.  I'm glad you're quickly fixing individual concerns, but Rome wasn't built in a day, etc., etc.  Until a non-involved editor has checked the sources against the wording in the article, my oppose stands. María ( yllo  submarine ) 13:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why not you check the wordings and the sources yourself? If you have any doubt regarding any wording, I'm ready to provide quotation from the sources. But please don't delay in building Rome :) -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Supernova, I'm also disappointed that this was such a gross misrepresentation of the source. You made a big change from what Simson was saying. I don't know, I fear that this whole FAC has been a bit rushed. -- Lobo  (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question here: "Evidence cited in support of a 1923 production date include the similarity of the women's hairstyle to that of Mary Pickford, an actress who dominated American film industry during the 1920s. Proponents of the later date claim that the woman wore a Pickford-style wig." It switches between "women" and "woman" from one sentence to the next, which is accurate? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it was one of the women (out of the two women seen in this film). I have added the missing words. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  01:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Reception and legacy reads a bit choppy to me, doesn't seem to flow too well. I'll try to take another look later. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice copyedit. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  01:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Review Images are good to go.
 * However, the vehicle in the movie isn't a Model T although I'm not sure exactly what type it is. It's far too big for a Model T which was aimed at the middle class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not included any reference because the plot section should not include referencing. But the source for the Model T claim is Slade, Joseph W. (2006), "Eroticism and Technological Regression: The Stag Film", History and Technology: An International Journal 22 (1): 35. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I read WP:FILMPLOT again and it says "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." So I've added that reference in the Plot section. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on sources: The nominator asked me to look to see if any sources have been neglected. I found at least two good books and one good journal acticle that should be consulted. Additionally, searches should be conducted on Film Indexes Online and JSTOR. Way too much to do during the FAC period. Recommend this be withdrawn for further research, source audit, etc. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Chapter 3 of Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the "Frenzy of the Visible" by Linda Williams (ISBN 9780520066526)
 * "Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": a History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959, by Eric Schaefer (ISBN 9780822323747)
 * Slade, Joseph. "Eroticism and Technological Regression: The Stag Film". History and Technology..
 * The first and third sources were already present in the article. The second reference has one page mention of the film, I've added this. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing nom for further improvement As per the suggestion by Laser brain, I'm withdrawing the nom for further improvement. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.