Talk:The Rejected/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start of review

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and ~~strike it out~~

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

(I may also mention coverage issues in specific sections)

Very little on predecessors (if that's the right term) - e.g. nothing on previous "popular" coverage, e.g. newspaper articles, especially if they feature panels of experts and/or homosexuals. I notice that the first of the Kinsey Reports, including the Kinsey scale, was first published in 1948. --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on later coverage of similar subjects and related reception, especially any that may been influenced by The Rejected. E.g. I'm surprised of no mention of CBS Reports: The Homosexuals. --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the positions expressed by the panel, except that the infobox says Bowman disputed the notion that homosexuality was an illness and supported legal reforms. --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical and popular response

I've surprised that this is based almost entirely on coverage in the San Francisco area. The exception is Variety (magazine) - but I notice that had a daily edition based in Los Angeles since 1933. How much coverage was there outside California? --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other

I'm surpised The Rejected is not in List of American television episodes with LGBT themes prior to 1969, especially as CBS Reports: The Homosexuals is included. --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

(comment) I'm happy that Otto4711 did a good job of research. The material Otto4711 found is not huge, so the simple structure for the top-level here is appropriate. --Philcha (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production

(comment) This my first GA review of a documentary. If it was a book, the default sections would "Plot summary" followed by something like "Development" (or simialr) with sub-sections "Conception", "Production" and "Publication". For a documentary, I guess "Plot summary" would be renamed "Content" (or similar) and I'd expect it to be last, as the contributors would not be finalised until the format and possible date were settled. -Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done If I've got this right, the sub-sections seem to be:
- "Conception". Reavis's "The object of the program will be to present as objective analysis of the subject as possible ..." defined it. IMO "First, the repugnance—or desire not to think about the problem [lesbian] ..." should also be part of the conception. --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there evidence of negiotating with stations, especially KQED, about the "conception"? --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the eventual format part of the conception, or agreed with KQED after they agreed on the topic? --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "... being a social problem akin to alcoholism or prostitution.[6] This echoed ...", i.e. R's concept typical of the time. --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Selling the show" - "Commercial stations turned down the program, as did sponsors. KQED bought the project in early 1961 under the new title". --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Production" - the format and content. --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit lost. Are you suggesting breaking down the current production section into several new sections? With the amount of material that's available, it seems to me that this would result in very small and choppy sections. I've rearranged the production section a bit so like ideas are closer together. I have no information as to when the talk show format was chosen or about any negotiations that Reavis may have undertaken with any stations. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, sub-headings would be too much, given the size of the section and article. The re-arrangement of the un-named "sub-sections" works well for me, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A pity there was no info about when the talk show format was chosen or about any negotiations, thanks for confirming that. --Philcha (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reavis' quote about lesbianism, "First, the repugnance ... is greatly simplified" now makes the "Conception" material look top-heavy. Is there any way to condense it? E.g. "Reavis excluded lesbianism from the scope of the show because he thought the public would find it even more uncomfortable, it was less conspicuous and its implications were different." --Philcha (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "top-heavy" but I've added some additional material (from a source I was already using and I can't believe I overlooked it before) which has expanded the production section so I think the impact of the full lesbian quote is reduced both from an information standpoint and visually.

That's an even better way to improve the balance! Sources can be sneaky little SOBs, they sometimes fool me too :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical and popular response

I'm concerned that "both a critical and a popular success" is an exaggeration, or at least WP:DUE, as almost all of the reception was California-based, with the possible of Variety (magazine), which was NY-based but had an offshoot in LA. Moni3 may be able to help. --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to call it a critical and popular success. It aired originally as a stand-alone documentary on a single station and it generated several positive reviews, including a national review in Variety, generated several hundred positive letters, was published in transcript form and syndicated nationally. Certainly much of its success was localized but I'd be willing to bet that a local PBS station manager today would be thrilled with this sort of response to a program and wouldn't hesitate to call it a "success". Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this still lets me uneasy. As you noted, "40 of the 55 NET stations" aired the show, - yet the sources say nothing about comments from their listeners nor from reviews in local newspaper. If we can't find a way this, I'll ask for a secod opinion. --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm not seeing the issue. It aired, it was successful with those critics who reviewed it and with viewers who watched it. By what definition is that not a success? There may be reviews in other papers but database searches have not turned anything up nor have I been able to locate a list of NET affiliates that aired the program. Regardless of whether such reviews exist or if anyone commented, I again don't see the problem with describing a program that aired on almost 3/4 of the affiliates as a success. Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I see comments from reviewers and listeners in only 1 of the 40 stations that aired the show. We have different perspectives, so I'm requesting a 2nd opinion. --Philcha (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinions, Jezhotwells and Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû. As all agree that "critical and popular success" is a large exaggeration and no cites support it, at present I'd have to fail the article on the "accuracy" criterion of WP:WIAGA, and probably on "neutrality". --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion

I have looked in various on-line worldwide news archives here in the UK and can find nothing about this documentary and would tend to agree that "critical and popular success" is a bit over the top. How about dropping that sentence and leave the rest. The phrase used does appear to be POV. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion

I've painstakingly searched through the Google news archive of 1960-1965 articles and couldn't find any mention outside of California. (Other than one brief advertisement-like mention in The New York Times, I can barely find anything about it.) Agree that "critical and popular success" is very over the top. Unless that sentence gets sourced -- some critic/reviewer/historian claiming it to be a success -- I agree with Jezhotwells above in that it gets dropped. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The notion that this is some tremendous exaggeration is faintly ludicrous and the idea that this word choice is sufficient to fail the article as a GA is bizarre. It was successful with critics. It was successful with the public upon airing. If I'd have said something like "smashing success" or "rave reviews" or "critical triumph" then fine but "success" simply means that it did well. However, I am not interested in fighting about this now-completely overblown issue so I have changed the wording to something like "well-received" which, with three positive reviews and several thousand supportive letters, seems eminently reasonable. If calling a well-received program "well-received" is still too wacky-cuckoo out there then either find a word you like or fail the article. I'm past the point of using time and energy on this micro-level of parsing individual words. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The change is fine, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links validity check

Links validity check report is fine. --Philcha (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks

Disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks report is fine. --Philcha (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

1 img, non-free, FUR looks fine. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Fine. --Philcha (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I have largely quit editing so I check in very rarely but this constitutes unfinished business. I'll try to be prompt about addressing the review.

Re "predecessors" I'm not sure what you mean. It didn't strike me as focusing on this program to discuss previous programs. I can include a couple of sentences about it if you think it's necessary.
Re later coverage or influence, I have no source material indicating that this program directly influenced what came after it. No sources indicate that anyone at CBS even heard of this program much less was influenced by it.
Re positions expressed by the panel, where I have sourcing for it it's covered, e.g. the bishop and the rabbi along with Bowman (" Episcopal Bishop of San Francisco James Pike and rabbi Alvin Fine addressed religious issues, with each man espousing his belief that sodomy laws should be repealed because in his opinion homosexuality was a mental illness.").
I think

More material added on the panel's positions and statements. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re critical response outside CA, I've searched in newspaper archives that cover thousands of dailies across the country and found no additional reviews or discussion. I'll take another look but it's doubtful there will be much new information.
I found it surprising and make my own researches, which seem to have got the same as yours, i.e. nothing outside CA. In fact I haven't seen even a sniff of a source you've omitted, you've been very thorough throughout the article. --Philcha (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rejected is included on the pre-Stonewall TV episodes list; it's 4th from the bottom between The Open Mind and Showcase. Otto4711 (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this. I'll do the paperwork now. --Philcha (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.