Talk:Flaming Creatures

Flaming Creatures has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 15, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Flaming Creatures appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that multiple screenings of Jack Smith's film Flaming Creatures were raided by police?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flaming Creatures.

Wikipedia

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Vago, Mike (April 19, 2020). "Avert your eyes from this list of banned films". The A.V. Club.

Untitled

There is great scope to expand the contents. I will try to collect more information and make this stub more useful. --Bhadani 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi i withdraw a link which leads nowhere and put an other one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.40.44 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Heliczer

In researching an article about Heliczer I'm seeing numerous claims that he appeared and even starred in Flaming Creatures. Just want to note that here, before I add him, in case there's some reason he's been omitted that I don't know about. Rosekelleher (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Jacobs

"Smith had observed the effects of using out-of-date film working on Ken Jacobs' Star Spangled to Death...."

"They seized the films and arrested Mekas, Ken Jacobs, Florence Karpf, and Jerry Sims...."

How does the first quoted sentence lead to the second? 71.233.90.196 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your exact question is, but Smith and Jacobs worked together on a few films. Jacobs and his partner Florence were working at the theater when the police shut it down. hinnk (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flaming Creatures/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hinnk (talk · contribs) 08:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and complete the review in the next couple days, but it may be delayed to Saturday due to the US holiday - just wanted to let you know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hinnk, just a few minor things to address in 2a and then I think we can wrap this one up! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you! The remaining issues should be fixed this weekend. The 1001 Movies source was added by another editor so I need to find a copy of it, and then I'll finish looking into those other two sources. hinnk (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard! Congrats to Hinnk and any other editors who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've made prose tweaks myself to save us both time; if there are any you object to, just let me know. No major issues - pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Where absent, please add the full first names for authors (such as Hoberman, J.) Not done, Hoberman is generally known and credited as just J. Hoberman (likewise for P. Adams Sitney). Fair enough, sounds good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] In general the sources in 'Sources' appear reliable, with one question, namely: What is the Leffingwell/Kismaric/Heiferman source, exactly? They are given as editors - who is the author? Is it a collection of Smith's writings? Or something else? It's a collection of writings by many authors. Focusing on Flaming Creatures? What kinds of backgrounds do the authors have? Focusing on Jack Smith I think, but yes. Going off of this retailer, contributors include artist Nayland Blake, critic J. Hoberman, critic/curator Edward Leffingwell, curator Lawrence Rinder, and writer/director Ronald Tavel. I don't have a copy on hand, but if you'd like a more detailed breakdown I can get it from the library this weekend. hinnk (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] That's ok, based on what you say it should be reliable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Cite 15 (All Things Considered) needs improvement. Who was presenting? Who wrote the segment? Is there a transcript or recording available somewhere? Added the reporter's name and a URL. In general, please add author and publisher links to all citations currently missing them, such as Kris Needs or Edward Leffingwell. Done. The American Conservative has no consensus on reliability per WP:RSN. I think in the context it's being used for (sharing Pat Buchanan's opinion) it's ok, but if you can find a more reliable source discussing the impact of the film on Fortas' nomination, that would be preferable. Replaced Buchanan's piece with a recent book that discusses his involvement. hinnk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Is Glassfire a reliable source? It seems like it meets the criteria. The author is independently notable as a writer, and Glasstire looks like an established publication with a professional editorial team. hinnk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] One more one minor issue, please add page numbers to sources that are chapters from longer works, or journal articles. I've gone through all the references and added page numbers where they were missing. All the journal articles had page numbers though, so I wonder if I'm misunderstanding. hinnk (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Issues addressed, pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reliable sources (other than note on American Conservative above) - assuming that will be discussed, provisional pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig turns up nothing of concern, but most sources in the article are inaccessible to it, so hold for manual spot check. Spot checked 4 sources I could access online, no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything else substantial missing. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail or signs of coatracking. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No major issues, any minor tweaks can be handled in prose review. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues or edit wars. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use poster is ok, as is non-copyrightable flyer - images are suitable. Good work finding illustrations! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No major issues, any minor tweaks can be handled in prose review. Well-illustrated.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing sources

References #26 (Hoberman 2001, p. 33.) and #58 (Sitney 2002, pp. 353, 357) are missing their corresponding long-form bibliographic information in the Sources section. @Hinnk, could you check and correct the sfns or add the source information as appropriate? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked both and fixed them. Also updated Sitney's quote (the 1979 and 2002 editions of Visionary Film use slightly different phrasing). hinnk (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent – thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]