Talk:Boys in the Sand

Comment on GA failure

It was a tough call failing this article. However, there are a couple of serious defects which need to be addressed. They could not be reasonably improved immediately to bring it up to GA status, which is why I voted for failure. As I see them, the issues are:

1. While generally well-written, the article's tone is not that of a written encyclopedia. This is not a major problem, but needs to be addressed. (Example: Use of the word "stripe" in the lead.)
2. The article's references do not comply with Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines.
3. The article lacks references. For example, Wakefield Poole's autobiography is never cited, yet brings major insight to bear on this topic. Casey Donovan's interviews are not cited, nor is the major Manshots magazine piece by Jerry Douglas referenced. Additionally, secondary sources are used repeatedly (e.g., the Rutledge citation) when primary sources (e.g., "Variety" for the box office receipts) should be cited.
4. The "citing sources" guideline is that whether using embedded links, Harvard referencing or footnotes, "A full citation is also required in a References section at the end of the article." Full citations are provide in the inline footnotes, but should also be provided at the end in a separate section. Additionally, the Poole interview, which is not used in the article, should be provided for in a "See Also" section.
5. Citations for the three direct quotations are lacking.
6. There is no citation to the strong claim that Donovan engaged in an "unprecedented pre-release publicity campaign..." This is controversial and challengeable, and needs to be supported.
7. The infobox is incomplete, lacking links to the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) and the Adult Film Database (AFDB). Citations should be included in the infobox.

This was a difficult call, but this article could easily be brought up to GA status. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The Article's Introduction is far too short and does not put a great deal of context or background to what exactly the article is about. A lot more information could be added that would give the reader some idea exactly what the page is about; who stars in the film, where it was produced, any profit figures, budget, production, anything. Its very confusing for people who have no knowledge of the subject matter, like myself.
   2. Many of the paragraphs are too short, as are some of the sections. One sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections are heavily frowned upon, and they should all be either merged or removed from the article entirely.
   3. The Article has few links in it. Adding more links could help create context for what is happening.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet Engite sections of the article go completely unreferenced. The references section also needs to be cleaned up, either by merging similar sources or adding a "works cited" part to properly put the references in a consistant order. see WP:CITE for further details.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet the article is relatively short and does not have a lot of details about much of anything outside the film's storyline.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Not Yet There are too few sources, which easily puts the article's neutrality in question. More, different sources are needed.

5. It is stable:

   Not Yet Aforementioned problems create an issue with this.

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

   Not Yet it will need more than one image to be properly illustrated, consider finding more.

7. Overall:

   On Hold until the issues mentioned above are addressed. -Ed! (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• 1) Agree that the lead is too short. Disagree strongly that such subjective cosmetic judgments like short paragraphs or even short sections should be considered a deal-breaker.
• 2) What sections are you saying are unreferenced? What specifically is the problem with the reference section, as I have no idea what format you want the references to take or what you mean by merging similar sources (since the citations come from different pages within the reference and need to be cited as such). Shouldn't separately cited references appear in the order in which they are cited?
• 3) There is to the best of my knowledge no length requirement for GA articles, beyond that they can't be stubs. It has fairly extensive details about the filmmaker's inspiration, production, budget, box office and critical reception, sequel and the impact that it had on the life of its star. What details are you suggesting the article lacks?
• 4) What specific part of the article are you suggeting is not written in a neutral tone? Where is the actual impropriety, rather than the belief that someone someday might somehow decide there's impropriety?
• 5) No comment as this critique relies completely on the other critiques.
• 6) Where is the requirement that an article requires more than one image to be GA, and what sort of images would you suggest might exist that would pass a fair use inquiry? Otto4711 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• 1) I say this mainly in reference to the "Sequel" and "The Wakefield Poole Collection" sections, the reason that their length is an issue is because their headers with short sections make the article look choppy. Purely cosmetic I know, but Section Size Policy says that a section should have at least 80 words in it for sections of facts and figures or 250 words for "soft" knowledge; the Sequel section has around 100 words, the "Collection" section has around 45.
• 2) The only requirement on a GA section's references is that they are consistant within the article. The references appear to be a conbination of MLA style and Harvard referencing. The solution to this would be to standardize the references to one type- the article is leaning a little more towards MLA, so that one would be easier. For that kind of reference, it would be best to split the reference section into two sections; one for the books cited, and one for the notes themselves. Here is an example of a GA article that does this.
• 3) A lot of the background information of the film is missing, which would add to the article substantially. What country was it made in? Are there any notable cast/production staff? How long did it take to produce, was it adapted for multiple countries, how easy/difficult was production? I think I'm mainly getting at the fact that the article has little in terms of what happened before the film came out, so the lack of background decreases the broadness of the article's coverage.
• 4) The references themselves are what create the problem with neutrality. There are no more than nine different sources on the article, one of which is IMDB, which is no more reliable than Wikipedia. I would suggest finding other sources for the information from the IMDB sources, replace them with other sites that are more well-known and more reliable. Though there is no set minimum number of different sources necessary for a GA, the more the article has, the better.
• 6) For a film like this, screenshots could be taken of the film and would be usable under Fair use so long as a rationale is put on the image page. Any screenshot would be usable, but one with the primary cast would be best. If that is not avaliable, any kind of images of production or advertisments of the film could be used as well.

I apologize for not being clear in the initial review, and I would emphasize that I placed the article on hold in hopes that other editors will review it and give their opinions and recommendations as well. I am trying to move its nomination along, it seems this article has been in the GA quee for a long time without any feedback. -Ed! (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the additional feedback. I'll dig into it more later but so far:
• 1) I've combined the sequel and DVD sections. I added the word "American" to the lead and will add another paragraph at least to better summarize the article. Dumb thing for me to overlook given the number of GAs I've worked.

• Lead expanded. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• 2) I guess I'm still not quite understanding the reference critique. Is it just that you want a book list or is there something actually wrong with the way one or more of the references is written or formatted? Can you put a "before and after" example of a reference from the article on this page on how you think it should be done? Because the example you linked to looks pretty much like these references IMHO, with the Andrede article happening to cite the same page more than once multiple times. The only time I do that, reference 9, is already grouped.

What he means is that you need a book list, like on Every Sunday. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• 3) I added the country of origin to the lead and also added the shooting location to the production section (it had been in the summary section). But I already have a complete cast list plus the director, including links to the only cast member notable enough for an article and the director, information on the inspiration for the film, budget, production dates and the replacement of a cast member. I don't really know what else you would want.
• 4) I'm only using the IMDB references to establish the existence of the sequel and Donovan's continuing appearances in adult films. I can replace them but the easiest source for that is going to be the Edmonson book. Will there be a problem with two more citations to that source?
• 6) I'm happy to take some screen grabs from the film and put them in the article, but doing so would appear to be a policy violation, specifically violating point 8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
• Let me know what your thoughts are. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I (User:Ssilvers) took a look at the comments. I'm not a film project member, so I have not reviewed the film project guidelines, which you should do. Here are my comments:

1. It is reasonably well written:

• Yes, I think the prose is good now. I would de-link all the redlinks unless you are imminently writing an article about those people/things. I also think the style is OK now, but you are missing a cite about the name being a take-off on the other film's name and them not being related: Is there nothing about the first film's name that inspired the themes in the second film? Didn't any of the critics mention it?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

• Are there no other references about this film? If the film is really a landmark, I bet there are other library sources that should be cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

• Original comment: Not Yet the article is relatively short and does not have a lot of details about much of anything outside the film's storyline.
• I agree with the original comment. I also wonder if you have adequately supported the assertion that the film was a "landmark". I think the interracial issue helps to support this, but the article could use a brief (referenced) mention of the historical context of the film within the porno industry. Perhaps some more general articles on the porno industry would contain all the history and references that you need to cobble together a good paragraph? Perhaps once you find more sources for the article, they will contain some information to help you fill it out. Also, some of the info in the Plot summary is really analytical/historical and could go in a history or analysis section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

• Original comment: Not Yet There are too few sources, which easily puts the article's neutrality in question. More, different sources are needed.
• I agree. See above.

5. It is stable:

• It should be stable after it is expanded as suggested in #4 above.

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

• I sympathize with your comment above - it's sort of a Catch-22. However, I think you could make a case for including a screenshot from the interracial scene with a caption like, "Screenshot showing the interracial liason in Part III" or something along those lines, since this is described in the text of having historical significance.

In any case, I think it is a good little entry, and I hope you take it the last yard to GA. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the comment about the title. IIRC it's mentioned in the sExplorarations interview but since it hasn't repeated recently I can't confirm it. It's interesting but not vital to the article. If the word "landmark" is a problem I have no objection to its being removed but I think the information about its box office success and being the first gay porn film to attract mainstream attention support the notion of its being a landmark. As for the number of sources, I'm sorry but I can't see that as a reasonable objection. If the sources as they are support the information in the article the fact that there aren't more of them shouldn't be a bar to listing the article. Again, I have no objection to adding a screen cap or two to the article but I don't see the point if they're just going to be challenged later. Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• And for everyone saying that there aren't enough details outside the plot, I have asked several times what details should be added and no reply has been forthcoming. Again, the article contains information on budget, shooting location, shooting schedule, casting, filmmaker's inspiration, replacement of an actor, promotion, premiere, public response, box office, the subsequent fame of the star, sequel and DVD release. Exactly and specifically, what other details are supposedly required? As for references, it has 18 footnotes from ten different sources. How many more sources are supposedly required? How can ten different sources possibly be considered too few? Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Now 23 notes from 13 references. Otto4711 (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• 27 notes from 15 sources, including sourcing for "landmark" and the film's title, along with additional sourced information on the film's role in porno chic. I seriously don't know what else could be needed to make this GA quality. Either way, pass or fail, can we please move this nomination? It's been on hold for three weeks. Otto4711 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Here's some friendly advice: The people who review articles know what they're doing, so I would suggest just doing what they ask. Writing reams of notes about your opinions doesn't help. I have done a few GA articles, and I have found life is a lot easier this way. I wish you, and the article, the best. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, but I have found the opposite to be true. GAC is as much a collaborative effort as any other editing task, and if I don't understand an aspect of a review it doesn't really help the colloboration if I don't ask questions about it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

Either way, this nomination HAS to move along. After looking at all of the improvements and suggestions, the article hasn't been improved enough to be a GA. I am failing this article as many other articles need to be reviewed, and this one is taking up to much time.Limetolime (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boys in the Sand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140131043139/http://www.therialtoreport.com/2013/06/16/wakefield-poole-theater-dance-and-pornpodcast-14/ to http://www.therialtoreport.com/2013/06/16/wakefield-poole-theater-dance-and-pornpodcast-14/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140131043139/http://www.therialtoreport.com/2013/06/16/wakefield-poole-theater-dance-and-pornpodcast-14/ to http://www.therialtoreport.com/2013/06/16/wakefield-poole-theater-dance-and-pornpodcast-14/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)