Talk:Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds

Forst Gay Sequel

I have deleted a comment debating the honesty of the film's billing as the "first gay sequel" for two reasons: 1) It veers way to far into POV category; 2) Neither Basic Instinct nor the Brotherhood series are specifically gay (although the Brotherhood series features hunky guys traipsing around in boxer briefs and homoeroticism in plenty).THD3 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PanagiotisZois (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Eating Out 2 Theatrical Poster.jpg - Fair use image, FUR appears complete and detailed. Source is valid.
2. File:Eating Out 2 Cast.jpg - Fair use image, FUR appears complete and detailed. AGF on offline source.

Prose and comprehensiveness review

Lede

• sequel to Eating Out (2004) - Is sequel a high value blue link? It feels like the average reader will know what a sequel is.
  • Changed.
• who is unsure of his sexual preferences. - Is preferences the right word here? Troy reads as bi, leaning hetero, in the summary.
  • @Crisco 1492: Thank you for taking the time to review this article! I might be a bit slow to handle everything due to other commitments. Regarding your point above: Hmm... Well, Troy does admit that he's been with women and some men. But at the same time he's also not sure if he's gay or straight for most of the film. He definitely think that he shouldn't have feelings for men and tries to be straight. It's not until the film's last 15 minutes or so that he's like, "I'm bisexual and proud of it". I'm not entirely sure how to put all that in the lede. Could "unsure" be replaced with "uncertain" maybe that he is "questioning his sexuality"? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    • I was wondering more about "preferences". I'll admit that I'm not up-to-date on the most recent discourses in sexual orientation and identity, but I do remember that in the 90s and 00s there were a lot of efforts to fight the view that being gay was a "choice". Preference implies a choice, to me at least, whereas "orientation" does not (the APA dictionary of psychology describes "preference" as outdated as well). Would "who is questioning his sexuality" or "who is exploring his sexual identity" work better? Or "who is seeking to understand his sexual orientation", even? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

      Altered it to "questioning his sexuality". PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• hotter - This doesn't seem to be appropriate, per WP:TONE. We should avoid slang
  • Changed
• Kyle and the girls devise a scheme in which Kyle pretends to be an ex-gay who is dating Tiffani, to overcome Troy's inhibitions and get him to sleep with the both of them - Did he make this plot with Gwen as well? You've introduced her in the previous line, so "both of them" could be ambiguous.
• the two have oral sex, but Marc cannot go through with it because he still has feelings for Kyle. - "go through with it" is ambiguous in this context. Do they start undressing, then Marc realizes that he is unready, or does he withdraw consent during the act?
  • Marc performs oral sex on Troy. Troy then starts giving head to Marc who is initially into it. However, after seeing a photograph on the shelf of himself with Kyle, he regrets them having sex. I have made a few changes which I hope are all right. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• witnessing the debacle - Are they peeking on the threesome, or is there another matter they witness?
  • They were peeking through the window, so I added that in.

Production

• Aside from Dapper, did any of the cast discuss their experiences in detail? Based on what's written here, it sounds like they were approached and, for the most part, just said "Alright".
  • Unfortunately, none of the sources I've found include any other statements from the remaining cast members. The DVD did include audio commentary, but I haven't been able to get my hands on that thus far. I'll see about working on that in the future.
    • Sounds good. I know how hard it can be to get ahold of more obscure films (or, heck, even physical media in general sometimes). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• Despite its low budget - is there any reporting on the film's budget?
  • Sadly, nothing.
• Nelson also highlighted Dapper's full-frontal scene, describing it as being of "impressive length"; - "It" is ambiguous. The next quote makes it sound like Dapper's penis is the "impressive length", but the context suggests that the scene had his nude body on-camera for a long time. Which is correct?
  • @Crisco 1492: I went through the source and I'm almost 100% it's referring to the scene's runtime, so I made the appropriate changes. I've also made modifications to the section as a whole, so hopefully it looks better now and doesn't rely as much on quotations, although I'm thinking of making a change to the image used. That, and making a clarification on the "Plot" area.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Sounds good.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Overall, the reception section feels awfully heavy on the quotes. This is to be expected, certainly, but we have repetitions of the word "hunky", as well as multiple uses of the word "also" to repeat ideas that could have been condensed with "several reviewers" or something similar.
  • @Crisco 1492: I'm inclined to agree. I may go through and rewrite this section to a degree and condense a few things. If you don't mind, this might take me a couple of days.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    • No worries. I know this article has been sitting for a while – doesn't make sense to rush it too much.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)RE

Source review

• Earwig found 40.1% similarity. Reviewing the examples provided, these are all the film's title or properly attributed quotes. Therefore, no copyvio detected.
• What makes greginhollywood.com a reliable source?
  • Seems a bit low-quality, so I removed it.
• Would be preferable for all online sources to have archives, if possible. The article is inconsistent in this regard.
  • The only sources I noticed that weren't archived were the 2 newspaper sources. I've added archive links to both.
• Please review sources for title case (contrast 42 and 43, for example)
  • I believe I've rectified that properly.
• Documentary - Is Allan Brocka on YouTube the same Q. Allan Brocka mentioned in the article? Per WP:COPYLINK, we need to be sure that he has the right to host this material before linking it. He is not the copyright holder; Quantic is.
  • @Crisco 1492: Based on the IMDB page for the mini documentary, the director was David Quantic. I'm not entirely sure if the channel is indeed Q. Allan Brocka's or not, but it seems to be the case. The avoid any issues with copyright, I can removed the link to the YouTube video. My only question is how exactly to reformat the source. How are DVD extras like this cited on Wikipedia?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I made a few changes to the citation, though I'm still not sure if it's all right like this. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's undocumented, but I see that CITE AV has "chapter" functionality. What about...

Quantic, David (May 29, 2007). "Serving Seconds: The Making of Eating Out 2". Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Ariztical Entertainment.

There's also an OCLC for the DVD (186338904) but since you aren't using any OCLCs, might not be necessary. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, great suggestion. The SFN thing still works perfectly. Thank you! I'll just work a bit more on the "Reception" section now, and then I'll be done. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion

 On hold Overall, this is very close to ready. Just a few nitpicks, mostly. Also, please note that I edited the article while reviewing. Please review to confirm no meanings have been changed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Just wanted to let you know that I've revised a small portion of the "Plot" section to hopefully clear a few things up. I've also replaced the promotional still image from the "Reception" section a GIF that, while risque, is definitely more appropriate given what the section itself is discussing. If you think using a GIF is too much and that a still image would be more appropriate-or that alternatively, one isn't necessary at all-I'm definitely willing to make the necessary changes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• As File:Eating Out 2 - Troy models nude in art class.gif exists, it does not meet the FU requirements (the resolution disqualifies it, and I'm iffy about a 10 second clip vs. a still image). As for the discussion... I think the earlier image worked better, given that all three actors had comments on their physical attractiveness, which is more visual. This scene had discussion as well, but the concept of a man disrobing and exposing his penis can be understood (i.e., does not meet FUC 8, "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.")  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: All right. I've restored the previous image which has both Dapper and Chukerman in it; plus Quiñonez. I also reinstated a previous source in the last paragraph, though I'm not sure if it breaks the flow of information. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, PanagiotisZois. Just let me know when you're ready with the Reception section, and we can close this out. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: Oh, I'm done with the section and everything else. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to get my hands on the audio commentary, at the very least, but for now I'm done. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. I've gone through the #Reception section, and I'm happy to say that I believe that this article meets the GA Criteria. Well done! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focuses on a gay man who pretends to be straight so he can seduce another man?

• Source: Cohen, Neil (November 2, 2006). "Just Desserts - 2004 Out Far! Sensation Eating Out is Back for Seconds". Echo Magazine. Archived from the original on February 24, 2007. Retrieved February 20, 2024.

• ALT1: ... that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds featuring a scene where a character has sex in a portable toilet caused many actors to drop out? Source: Quantic, David (May 29, 2007). "Serving Seconds: The Making of Eating Out 2". Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds. Ariztical Entertainment.
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Farnese Artemis

Improved to Good Article status by PanagiotisZois (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC).

• Not a review, but ALT0 fails WP:DYKFICTION. ALT1 should be fine on that front.--Launchballer 20:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Thank you for contributing to the discussion. :) Taking that into account, would ALT0 work as "that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds focusing on a gay man who pretends being straight to seduce another man came from writer-director Phillip J. Bartell's desire to invert the first film's premise?"? I can come up with a few alternatives if needed. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

ALT2 still violates that policy I'm afraid, and I still think ALT1 is more interesting. I would however suggest a slightly shorter version of ALT1 per WP:DYKTRIM, ALT1a: ... that a scene in Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds caused many actors to drop out?. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I fear that if ALT1 is trimmed, it will end up becoming less interesting. On the one hand, it can be argued that it creates a sense of mystery. As in, "why did many actors drop out?". But on the other hand, the idea that actors dropped out of a role because the character has sex in a portable toilet is definitely unique and will also catch people's attention; I think. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I can see arguments either way, I'll let a reviewer/promoter decide.--Launchballer 22:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

PanagiotisZois, this is not a review either, but I'm afraid retaining ALT1's bit about sex in a toilet would be borderline "excessively sensational or gratuitous" as per WP:DYKINT; concealing the scene in question through ALT1a should arguably make for an "Intriguing hook that leaves the reader wanting to know more". Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this requires PZ's attention as there is still a valid hook on this page, i.e. ALT1a. This needs a reviewer.--Launchballer 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Full review still needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't find any of the hooks up above usable or interesting, and I don't get the hold up on writing new hooks as there are many available in the article. The nom has had two months to offer new ones. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Do you intend on doing a full review? Until that happens and someone reviews this nomination, why bother coming up with new ones now? Once someone actually performs a proper review, there's nothing on my part to do.PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• That's pretty much the opposite to how I work, so I'll leave the review to someone else who will work with you. The "why bother" attitude is disturbing to me, as you could easily add new hooks and attract a reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois and Viriditas: Right, well, the way I work is that I review the oldest fully unreviewed nom when I need a QPQ, and this is it (ping me when you've finished with Hanif Kureshi). This is long enough and new enough. QPQ done and I see no article disqualifiers. I would have said that ALT1a was intriguing (I would have wondered why they dropped out) and I disagree with ALT1 falling foul of WP:DYKGRAT (this is an article about sex!), but if Viriditas disagrees then you should probably propose another hook.--Launchballer 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: All right, I've come up with a few alternative hooks. I do think the OG is interesting, albeit needing a bit of rewording, and ALT1 also works in either its short or long fomr, but hopefully these new ones will prove more interesting. ALT2: "... that Phillip J. Bartell, writer and director of Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds, once described the film as "gaysploitation"?" Source. ALT3: "...that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds cowriter Q. Allan Brocka, a film heavily featuring the ex-gay movement, was often asked by ex-gay groups to denounce his homosexuality?" (Source: DVD Making-Of). ALT4: "...that Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds featuring nude scenes involving the male leads caused one critic to describe the film as a "must see"?" Source.PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh I agree, ALT0 is interesting, but we can't use it because of WP:DYKFICTION and we can't use ALT3 as it fails WP:DYKMAJOR. ALT2's fine, though I'd trim it as follows: ALT2a: ... that the director and co-writer of Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds once described the film as "gaysploitation"?. (Technically I'd need another reviewer for 'co-writer', but ALT3 AGF checks out factually and covers that there was more than one writer so I'm IARing.) ALT4 feels promotional, so I'm approving ALT2a only. (I still don't think a hook about toilet sex is gratuitous from an article about sex, but let's see what a promoter thinks of ALT2a.)--Launchballer 12:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If the use of "co-writer" is an issue, the hook can simply state "the director of" instead. One could argue that directors are usually treated as more important roles than screenwriters when it comes to films; unlike TV shows. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's probably a better idea.--Launchballer 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)