| Revision as of 04:09, 10 October 2014 editNinjaRobotPirate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators147,723 edits →GA Review← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:21, 10 October 2014 edit undoNinjaRobotPirate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators147,723 edits →GA Review: Followup to my earlier postNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Mostly looks good. I have a few questions. For one, I'd like to see the redlink to the non-existent article ] deleted in some way. Can you link to another relevant article or simply take out the link and leave it as text? Also, I think the lead and image captions should have citations, and the statement "Fritz the Cat (1972) provoked outrage as the first X-rated animated film" is unclear, as "X-rated" means different things in different parts of the world. The meaning of "X rating" in the UK, for example, is not the same as it is in the United States, and in Canada, this film, I believe, is rated either 15 or R. I believe it's also rated 18 or 15 in the UK. What provoked outrage? Was it the depiction of sex, drug use, racism or criticism of left-wing politics? I don't think simply being rated X was enough for the film to provoke outrage. ] (]) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC) | Mostly looks good. I have a few questions. For one, I'd like to see the redlink to the non-existent article ] deleted in some way. Can you link to another relevant article or simply take out the link and leave it as text? Also, I think the lead and image captions should have citations, and the statement "Fritz the Cat (1972) provoked outrage as the first X-rated animated film" is unclear, as "X-rated" means different things in different parts of the world. The meaning of "X rating" in the UK, for example, is not the same as it is in the United States, and in Canada, this film, I believe, is rated either 15 or R. I believe it's also rated 18 or 15 in the UK. What provoked outrage? Was it the depiction of sex, drug use, racism or criticism of left-wing politics? I don't think simply being rated X was enough for the film to provoke outrage. ] (]) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| : The lead doesn't need citations, as the statements are already cited in the article per ]. I created a redirect for anime fandom that redirects to the proper article. You're right about the MPAA X rating; it's ambiguous to non-Americans. However, simply being X rated ''is'' enough to provoke outrage, as that rating was almost exclusively reserved for hardcore pornography. The particulars of ''why'' it was rated X (and the associated controversies) are better off discussed in that film's article, I think; it would be undue emphasis to discuss such things here. ] (]) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC) | : The lead doesn't need citations, as the statements are already cited in the article per ]. I created a redirect for anime fandom that redirects to the proper article. You're right about the MPAA X rating; it's ambiguous to non-Americans. However, simply being X rated ''is'' enough to provoke outrage, as that rating was almost exclusively reserved for hardcore pornography. The particulars of ''why'' it was rated X (and the associated controversies) are better off discussed in that film's article, I think; it would be undue emphasis to discuss such things here. ] (]) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :: Maybe I was wrong. It wasn't too difficult to insert a bit about ''Fritz''{{'s}} controversy. By the way, the captions are cited where appropriate. If you look at the article, the statements are already cited in the body. The captions merely reiterate what the article body says. Where they don't, they are properly cited. ] (]) 04:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:21, 10 October 2014
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The lad searches the night for his newts (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Mostly looks good. I have a few questions. For one, I'd like to see the redlink to the non-existent article anime fandom deleted in some way. Can you link to another relevant article or simply take out the link and leave it as text? Also, I think the lead and image captions should have citations, and the statement "Fritz the Cat (1972) provoked outrage as the first X-rated animated film" is unclear, as "X-rated" means different things in different parts of the world. The meaning of "X rating" in the UK, for example, is not the same as it is in the United States, and in Canada, this film, I believe, is rated either 15 or R. I believe it's also rated 18 or 15 in the UK. What provoked outrage? Was it the depiction of sex, drug use, racism or criticism of left-wing politics? I don't think simply being rated X was enough for the film to provoke outrage. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The lead doesn't need citations, as the statements are already cited in the article per WP:CITELEAD. I created a redirect for anime fandom that redirects to the proper article. You're right about the MPAA X rating; it's ambiguous to non-Americans. However, simply being X rated is enough to provoke outrage, as that rating was almost exclusively reserved for hardcore pornography. The particulars of why it was rated X (and the associated controversies) are better off discussed in that film's article, I think; it would be undue emphasis to discuss such things here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe I was wrong. It wasn't too difficult to insert a bit about Fritz's controversy. By the way, the captions are cited where appropriate. If you look at the article, the statements are already cited in the body. The captions merely reiterate what the article body says. Where they don't, they are properly cited. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)