Wikipedia:Peer review/List of 1990s American television episodes with LGBT themes/archive1

===List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990–1997===

This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * 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.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990–1997/archive1. Comments from More detailed comments later, for now, here are two:
 * The page title should have an en dash per WP:DASH: "List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990–1997"
 * 1997 seems like an arbitary cutoff point. Why? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Hm, how did I miss that? Is it all right if I move the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If you move the article I won't move it back but I think I have made my position clear on the proposed move. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I moved it. Hope you don't hate me too much! :/ Dabomb87 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a tree, I can bend. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "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.
 * What makes http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/tropiano030528 a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Spelling issues corrected. Pop Matters is cited in numerous publications as sourcing so I believe it meets our criteria for reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So that leaves the first two issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The article currently has six images. Which are you questioning? Otto4711 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So my question is why do you need three kissing pictures (minimal use is the key)? I say delete at least one, preferably File:Pfkiss.jpg, where you can barely see anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "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)

←Well, I think at least one of the kissing images should go. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

I asked around. For convenience, here are the six non-free images:
 * File:1991 Beverly Hills 90210.jpg
 * File:Leswedding.jpg
 * File:2ndkiss.jpg
 * File:Pfkiss.jpg
 * File:Rosekiss.jpg
 * File:The Simpsons 4F11.png Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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).  --M ASEM  20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. —teb728 t c 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)