Wikipedia:Peer review/Homosexuality in speculative fiction/archive1

Homosexuality in speculative fiction edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… In the last few months it has had a complete overhaul. It is now: 1. Broad in coverage (broader than any of the print encyclopedias used as sources)
2. Fully wikified
3. Referenced.
4. Well written (in my own opinion!)
5. Has free images.

So i'm hoping to submit for GAR soon. As i've written almost all of it alone, i want outside input, especially on the writing and overall flow.

Thanks, Yobmod (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add more explanation to the lead image. Are these symbols conventionally and widely adopted in SF fiction? Or they have only been used in a single work or by a single author? Or created by a Wikipedian? Eklipse (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changed the caption to show they are invented by the artist. Image will be changed to include women, once i figure out how.Yobmod (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you still didn't answer WHO did invent them or WHERE were they precisely used. I suspect it is the work of a wikipedian, so it qualifies as OR. Eklipse (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the work of a wikipedian, but a guy i know in the real world. They weren't used anywhere, they're just pretty (free) images. It seems easier to include copyrighted imaged as "fair use" than orginial art! -rmvd.

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

Interesting article - I agree that the lead image does not really fit though. There is no robot sex described in the article and very little alien sex - also by using male symbols, the figure excludes females.

Oki, the picture will be changed, to include women and exclude robots.

I wonder if it would make sense to change the title of the article to something broader - one problem is that many SF works that explore homosexuality also explore other types of sex - Odd John implies incest, Varley's Titan, Wizard, and Demon triloogy has lesbian protagonists, but features interspecies sex and the detailed centaur matings possible, etc. Alien sex is hard to define as homosexual, but may certainly require the reader to think outside the box - see Asimov's The Gods Themselves with its three alien species having sex (two using male pronouns, one female) or Varley's centaur variations above.

There is already an (extremely poor) article for Sexuality in SF in general, that article should cover SF approach to sex overall, with a summary of this article in the section there.

I thought the first section explained about alien sexualities being used as metaphors etc - i'll have to make it clearer. ::Anything more would be OR - as far as i remember, the aliens in The Gods Themselves reproduce by a method completely different from humans, so the gramatical genders had nothing to do with actual gender, no? Without gametes, the idea of binary sex soesn't exist, hence nor does homosexuality, except as a metaphor.

OK they do reproduce differently, although I would say without gametes robots can't have sex either. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the lead focused a shade too much on the bad old repressed days of no sex at all in SF and the article could use more examples from recent works, especially the 1990s

I'll cut back on the repression in the lead, although for most critics this is the most notable thing. "Homophobia is no longer considered acceptable..." is about all the sources say.

Article needs more references, for example four of six paragraphs in Modern SF (post New Wave) have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

All paras now have more than one cite. And all quotes.

Jepp - as SF got more accepting, far less people wrote about it! So the post new wave section will be trimmed and sourced.

Would it be possible to find people writing about a particular author's work, which could be quoted? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

will do.

Lots of short one or two sentence paragraphs and some vey short sections - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.

I'll combine them, are no real sources showing notability for the lesbian presses for example.

See WP:MOSQUOTE - son't use the cquote template here

Done.

I would split out the list and make it sortable.

Done the split - to List of gay SF. Never seen a sortable list on WP, so no idea how to change that, but is now a different article anyway.

Alpha Flight's Northstar - was he gay from day one or was it only revealed in 1983 (hints) and definitively in 1992? This needs to be clearer.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Will do. Thanks![reply]

You are very welcome, thanks for an interesting article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]