Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank's Cock/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 promoted by Ian Rose 17:34, 15 November 2012.

Frank's Cock

 * Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a thorough look at an interesting and fairly significant short film. This is admittedly a bit different than my usual FAC material, but I'm certain you'll find it an engaging read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

Support - most of my concerns were answered in the peer review, with just a few more minor points:
 * Support on all criteria. TBrandley 03:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "first venture at directly addressing" - I think this should be either "first attempt at directly addressing" or "first venture directly addressing"
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "After pondering how to complete the film...chose to complete the film" - repetitive
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk)


 * "In screenings Frank's Cock was later marketed" - don't think "later" fits here, either it was marketed during the screenings or after them
 * Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "films regarding the disease had appeared...had appeared in 1985" - repetitive
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "early gay pioneers with AIDS" - by "pioneers" do you mean activists or open spokespeople, or just any gay person with AIDS?
 * Source has "artists", changed to that (he gives Vito Russo and Arthur J. Bressan, Jr. as examples from the first generation). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Were there any copyright concerns raised about the clips appropriated for the non-original quadrants?
 * None that I could find. Hoolboom's views on copyright can be read here, and I doubt he would have cared either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "touted the short as expressing, humour, and sexual obsession" - is that a stray comma after "expressing", or do you mean "expressive"? (Or is this a quote?)
 * That's a typo. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Cole: page range should use endash
 * Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. Well written, meticulously sourced, educational and encyclopedic. However, like, I've just got a few minor points that could be addressed:
 * Any chance of an image for the infobox? Some sort of movie poster, or something like that?
 * Haven't found anything like that. Theoretically we could put the screencap there, but it works better next to where it is discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we perchance get a See also section, with suggestions for the reader of between 3-5 articles they might be interested in, and also some links to related portals?
 * Suggest adding a Further reading section, with recommendations of 4-6 books or scholarly articles or other sources of further reading for the reader within the more general topics discussed, not necessarily relating specifically to the film?
 * I'll look into these two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit of both. Not sure on the relevance of the further reading selection, but it would likely provide good background knowledge for the interested reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this high quality article, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed this for GA  - I found the prose very warm and engaging, really a nice read, and it is comprehensive as well. I can't think of anything else to improve. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - very interesting read. Meets FA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Pretty small article, but well researched! It's a pleasant read and I'm impressed with your notes and referencing. Nice job!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes -- picky referencing things:
 * Couldn't see where McIntosh appeared in the citations -- perhaps the ref belongs in a Further Reading section.
 * I had added the author after adding the reference and neglected to update the short references.


 * Inconsistent formatting for multiple authors: "Rush and Baughman 1997" vs. " Reinke & Henricks 1997" (actually, I believe the best method is to mirror the full reference format that uses a semi-colon, e.g. "Reinke; Henricks 1997", but it's not a deal-breaker for me).
 * Standardised to "&", as that is default for SFN.


 * Why is Ann Arbor Film Festival abbreviated "AA Film Fest" while Toronto International Film Festival is abbreviated TIFF? Unless these differ because they're official abbreviations, they should be consistent.
 * I was going based on website names, but it appears Ann Arbor also uses AAFF. Changed.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nitpicks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Image check -- adequate FUR for screenshot, portrait released with OTRS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


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