Talk:Zombie pornography/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 21:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Urve:, starting this GAR. I have so many questions after learning this was an article, let alone a GA candidate. Might as well sacrifice myself to this can of worms (pun... intended?). Please use the  Done template, strikethrough, or some other means of indicating a problem has been resolved. Review will begin shortly.Etriusus (Talk) 21:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A Wikipedia is not censored template may be needed on the talk page. I tend to not frequent this side of Wikipedia so I'll trust Urve's discretion on if it's necessary. (WP:REDACTION)

I also don't follow this side of wp - but there weren't problematic edits or whining when it was on the main page, so I don't think it's necessary since the article gets little traffic

Stability

Nothing to note, looks good. Relatively new page with only 20 edits, Urve is the main author.

Sourcing

No dead links detected. Sourcing seems reliably done, Spot checks find nothing concerning.

Copyvios

Earwig is showing nothing notable.

Images

Image rights are in order, Flikr license. 1 image, seems appropriate for the purposes of the article.

thank you

Prose

Intro

• Per MOS:LEAD, citations are uncessary here.

  this specific characterization - appetites without desire - is somewhat different from what ward says, cited later in the article. I don't know if it's worth putting it in the body, so I glossed zombie in the lead here with mcglotten and vangundy's definition

• Well written, although its a rather short lead.

Include information from the anaylsis section

added some information, but at the risk of turning it into just an analysis of bruce labruce rather than zombie porn as a genre (tricky!), I've erred on the side of saying less

Background

• Nothing to note, well done.

  thank you

Emergence and examples

• 'few obscure American zombie porn films' can this be expanded?

  ward doesn't give examples with analysis, and neither does the underlying source (jones, which I cited here now). I added a couple of examples - there are more I didn't name, but they aren't notable and have little info. zombie ninja gangbangers is funny, though, and somewhat representative of the titles, so I added that one :)

• 'disturbed the trend' puffery
  • changed (but it is true :p)
• Mention the term necrophilia when talking about NZ.
  • put in a parenthetical, hopefully that's enough, since the preceding sentence defines the term

Analysis

• Prose is well done
  • thank you
• Is there anything else that can be added? Legal assessments?
  • nothing that I've found in the sources - when the article says emergent, it really means that. the legal analysis was just using it as a case study for broader censorship practices, so there's nothing specific I've found about the legality. bruce labruce's films don't get too much scholarly attention for their form or subject matter, and get more attention as artistic works - and if it's not about bruce labruce, there's almost nothing.

Misc

Here're some sources you may be interested in: [1], [2], [3].

I had some concerns about the completeness of this topic so I did a bit of research.

it's an interesting dilemma, because most zombie porn research is specifically on bruce labruce, but zombie porn itself isn't about his work. where there are trendlines we can draw from analysis of his work in particular, we should - and it's important to note that there was a controversy about screening his films, specifically because of the subject matter. but ultimately, more detail is more fitting for articles like muff and the films themselves, than the higher-level subject of zombie porn

General Note Overall, very well done, a short, sweet article on an otherwise obscure but still notable topic. I made some edits of my own, please review them and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Will throw the article On Review. Shockingly not the weirdest GA review I've done. Etriusus (Talk) 21:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your help, Etriusus! and for the compliments, which I will always take ;) it's an interesting subject; I've been thinking about creating vampire pornography as well, but the sources are much lighter for that one. (interestingly, also queer - but usually lesbian.) I hope I've done what's needed.

just a comment, and I'm not saying that this is review is over - but when it is, you might want to use the new GAN review tool, to see if there are any bugs; hopefully it eases some of the workload that GAN processing involves. (if this passes, you will have to add it manually to WP:GA - that is a planned feature, though!) Urve (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Urve: It feels remarkably weird, because normally I can find more work for a page (If nothing else it's a testament to the quality of the article, even if the subject matter is a bit strange). Of all the reviews I've done, this has probably been the most painless. The only outright improvement I can think of is adding an infobox, but this is outside the purview of the GA review.

Thanks for linking the tool!!! This review can be used as a test for the script, if you want to follow it here: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.

As the resident lesbian, I'm gonna be excitedly waiting for vampire porn, whenever it comes out.

I did have some concerns about the lesser known WP:NOTINHERETED argument (Essentially an issue with WP:NOTE) but it appears you've done a good job at keeping the article broad and outside of just the response to one film. Any additional issues are simple grammar or wording bits I already cleaned up on my own. Risking coming off as a rubber-stamped review, I'll give the article one last read before passing it. Etriusus (Talk) 03:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.