Talk:Fucking Machines/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Cirt

I will read this article closely, and will begin this review shortly. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Quadell, this is my latest quality improvement project related to freedom of speech and censorship. — Cirt (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, other quality improvement projects I've taken on have included Fuck (film) and Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties -- next up I'm mulling over is Go the Fuck to Sleep. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I suspect Marc Randazza would make a great candidate as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but right now future projects hopefully include Go the Fuck to Sleep and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended.

• 1a The word "authentic" is used twice in the first paragraph.
• 1a There's a redundency here: "a live interactive format in which viewers could watch shoots live"
• Just wondering: The text refers to FM "as the second website"... was kink.com the first? What was it?
• 1a The word "joy" feels out of place in the first paragraph of "Film production". Most people associate the word with less fleeting emotions. Would something like "authentic enjoyment" or "sincere pleasure" work for you?
• 1a Is it correct to use the past tense in these sentences? I would have thought the present tense would be more accurate, since the site is still around: "The site featured machines", "Models that appeared on Fucking Machines film shoots were instructed", "Film shoots took place in the basement of the Armory", "The website asserted", etc.
• 1a I think LLC is a parenthetic (like the word "Nevada" in "Las Vegas, Nevada"), and so needs commas before and after. At least, Randazza writes it that way in his briefs.
• 1a "Acworth told Orlando Weekly he might have ceased appeals when the mark had initially been rejected" is ambiguous. It could indicate that perhaps Acworth did cease appeals then or perhaps he didn't. We know he didn't, so a rewording would be helpful. (He considered ceasing appeals?)
• 6b I actually thought at first that Annalee Newitz was shown in the image visiting the production set. (She's actually at the unrelated O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference in the pic.) Even though the caption is accuarate, I would recommend dropping the "After visiting the film production set," clause to avoid confusion.
• 3b The "Analysis" section is quite long, longer than the section on the entire history of the company (minus the trademark appeal). Much of the content is useful and helps the reader fully understand the company and its products, but sometimes it feels like every available comment is thrown together. I believe it should be trimmed a little bit, although it's kind of up to your own editorial discretion what to keep and what to remove. Personally, I think the most important parts to keep are the note in that Oxford Encyclopedia, info about Archibald's research, and the insightful commens by Newitz, Violet Blue, Ray, Ruberg, Roy, and especially Schaschek. I think the least useful are Vogels' comment about reader habits, the back-and-forth between the SF Weekly and other newspapers, and Lynn's comment in Naked Ambition. And I'm not really sure Akhtar's comment relates directly to fuckingmachines at all. What do you think could be cut?

  Those are appropriate cuts. I like the decision to move the SF Weekly coverage to History. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh! And one thing I forgot to add. The "See also" section is rather long for this article. That's fine, but are any of the links there ones that could be incorporated into the article text instead?

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

---

This article is a strong candidate for GA status. I made a few copy-edits, but the prose is really in great shape.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is very good. All issues have been resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Excellent use of quality sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All issues have been resolved.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It's an admirably NPOV article about a controversial topic.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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 issues have been resolved.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this nomination on hold. If all issues are resolved in the next seven days, the article will pass. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Quadell, above should now all be addressed. I've noted each change point-by-point in the edit summaries, individually. Thanks again, these were all most helpful suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the fastest I have ever passed a GAN, after having completed a hundred previously. Excellent work. This article now fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm very happy to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Cirt (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)