Talk:Reel Affirmations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleReel Affirmations has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 1, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 1, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 1, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that only after five years since its founding in 1991, Reel Affirmations became the fourth-largest LGBT film festival in the United States?
Current status: Good article

Good Article review[edit]

Quite good. Two real points, and I'd be happy to pass it.

  • Awards section - who won when? I could be wrong, but that seems an important part of a film festival, and usually when films win important festival awards they trumpet it fairly loudly. A list would be good, or a table. Many of the winners will probably have articles here, link to them. The article is short enough that there should probably be enough room for them all. The festival's own site will probably be a good source.
  • Neither the One In Ten Web site nor the Reel Affirmations Web site lists their past award winners. I've contacted them via email, but have not received a response yet. Even if I get an email, the problem will be verifiability. - Tim1965 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, email won't do, unfortunately. :-(. Shame, that. You probably won't be able to get them all, but do the best you can. Look at their web page, and the Internet Archive of their web page (which is a pain, because it loads slowly, and they seem to have put the winners in a different place each time, but still). Here are winners from
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does adding a list of winners meet the list incorporation guideline? If a good list can be worked up, shouldn't it be its own separate article? - Tim1965 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are none of the Wash Post articles on line? Not a killer, but usually there are at least ways to read articles on line after paying for them.
    • Done! The free articles have links to them. The guidelines on external links note, "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article." So I didn't link to those. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Notes section is so extensively detailed that I don't think a separate References section is needed. I'd combine them.
    • In WP:Citing Sources, it seems 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." I put both because of that guideline (although most articles don't follow this). But if it makes or breaks the GA, I'll combine the two sections. - Tim1965 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • O'Sullivan, Michael. "Gay and Lesbian Film Fest Adds a Women's Program." Washington Post. October 15, 1999. - this shows up twice in References.
    • Wikilink names of newspapers to our article on them, the first time at least. Washington Post; Washington City Paper, You and I know which one is one of the most reputable and widely circulated newspapers in the country, and which one is a local only alternative weekly, but a reader from New Zealand might not, give him a link to tell the difference.
    • October 11, 1991 -- per WP:DATE that really should be October 11, 1991, and similarly throughout. It's a silly workaround to allow using date preferences.
    • I didn't want to re-link "October 11, 1991" throughout, as that creates low-value overlinking. The date is listed once in the text, where it is linked. But in the footnotes and references, it's not clear why the dates should be linked, if the Manual of Style's guidelines on overlinking are to be met. Could you please clarify? Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


On hold until these are fixed, which can surely be done in 7 days. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when I was Googling around for RA awards, I found this: http://www.glaa.org/archive/2004/anniversaryrelease0222.shtml - apparently Kellogg got an award for heading the RA festival. That seems like a useful thing to mention in the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pretty good! But not everything, and people are commenting that it's been on hold too long. I'm going to extend the hold a few more days, to see if you can address the following:

  • The awards thing still troubles me, I see it as a pretty obvious hole in completeness. If you see the complete list of awardsas being too long, and want to make it a separate article, per Wikipedia:Summary style, that would be perfectly fine, but we need to have it somewhere. If you don't want to go to the trouble of being exhaustive, at least a representative sampling (say the last year or two which is on the current web site) is important enough to have somewhere.
  • Not linking to pay-for external links is specifically to "External links", not "References". "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." The idea is that "External links" is where we direct people to look for more information if they should so want, it's sort of a recommendation, so we avoid recommending people pay others money. "References", on the other hand, is where we found the information we used to write the article. They're not there for "further reading", since presumably we pulled the most important things out of there already. They're there because a bored 10 year old from Duluth could have inserted any give sentence in our article, and people need to be able to check that yes, this is actually so.
  • File:RA17 program cover.png - I didn't check on this before, but should have. It's a fine fair use case, but needs sourcing, removal of many multiple redundant templates repeated over and over in repetition redundantly over and over again, and it has too many templates saying the same thing several times. :-)

Make at least a reasonable effort at two out of three of those, and you've got the little green plus sign. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given how cruddy the list of award recipients looked, I made that a separate list, and put that in the new "See also" section. I added the local award for Sarah Kellogg, and cleaned up the weird triple-licensing stuff on the image. (Now let's hope the delete-bots don't try to delete it, thinking the licensure tags are wrong!) - Tim1965 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of minor tweaks myself (you put the Kellogg award between 1994 and 1995, though it was given in 2004, for example). Passed GA. See also my comment about the "no date" thing on the List article talk page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reel Affirmations. 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:

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) 19:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reel Affirmations. 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:

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) 10:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reel_Affirmations&oldid=1206477285"