Talk:LGBT themes in speculative fiction/GA1

GA Review

Currently under review. Mike Christie (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Please note that not every comment below need necessarily be attended to for the article to be passed. I will pass the article if the majority of the issues are addressed and no remaining issues are sufficiently serious to cause a failure.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
a) Prose.
I'd avoid the parenthetical comment in the very first sentence of the lead, if you can. I'm not even sure this comment belongs in the lead at all -- couldn't it be included in the body of the article, perhaps in critical analysis, in a comment on the boundaries of the discussion? The very last sentence of the critical analysis mentions a queer horror anthology, so why not mention it there? It also wouldn't hurt to say why you think it can be distinguished -- if it's obvious, why does it require mention? If not, what's the reason? If you feel it does belong in the lead, I think it should be separated from the first sentence, at least by a period, and it could also be placed later in the lead.
Ok, i agree it is better in the fisrst section. It is there to clarify "speculative fiction", as there was a question about what this meant when i requested comments.
Done Removed parantheses and simplified to "related genres", which are described in the SF and fantasy articles.
OK. Just FYI, in case you take this on to FAC: the {{done}} template is fine at GA, but it's discouraged at FAC because of the large size of the page and the limited number of templates that can be transcluded on a single page. Mike Christie (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the tip!Yobmod (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think you need to explain the "LGBT" acronym the first time it's encountered; the link's a good idea but readers unfamiliar with the term shouldn't need to click on the link to understand the term.~~
Will do, just using it as a nicer way of saying queer at the moment.
Done Exppanded acronym

Lead, second paragraph: "It is further claimed". This phrase implies that this sentence extends the assertions of the previous sentence. I think it might serve better to treat it as a contrast: sf's ability to tell effective stories about LGBT issues is a comment on sf as a vehicle for LGBT themes; the comment about identification with outsiders is a comment about LGBT readers and their interest in sf. Two very different things, though with some overlap, I'm sure. I think "further" is actually misleading here.
Done Changed to also, so doesn't sound like one follows fro other.

This sentence: "On the other hand, science fiction and fantasy can also provide more freedom than realistic literature to imagine alternatives to the privileged assumptions of heterosexuality and masculinity that suffuse many cultures" bothers me. I think "privileged", and to a lesser extent "suffuse", are somewhat approving in tone. The argument is that the POV of a heterosexual male is privileged by being the default POV. The problem with the term is that it expresses a sense of injustice. You might soften this to "default assumptions", though if you prefer to leave this as it is I think it's defensible, and I wouldn't fail the article for it.
I don't mind softening it here, the sense of injustice came from the source. I'll removed privileged maybe?
Maybe replace "privileged" with "default"? And how about "permeate" instead of "suffuse"? Just suggestions. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Went with "default" as suggested. think it sounds better anyway.

"Although not usually identified as a genre writer like Sturgeon, William S. Burroughs in 1959 published Naked Lunch" -- I don't think this quite says what you want it to. As it stands it says that it's surprising that William Burroughs published "Naked Lunch", given that he was not a genre writer. I think you need to restructure these sentences to say something like "Burroughs is not usually regarded as a genre writer, but his 1959 Naked Lunch <insert phrase arguing that it can be considered sf>. <Explain connection to LGBT themes>. However, I should also note that there is no reference for this paragraph; I think you need one since there is interpretation here rather than just uncontroversial information about the contents.
will rewrite - is definitely a reference for it, a citation duplicate has been misplaced - i'll find it.
Done Rewrote per suggestion, and added cite from GLBTQ enylopedia entry on Gay SF (was same one used for Sturgeon).
OK. I think that paragraph is going to need some more polish, but it's fine for GA. Mike Christie (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"an unnatural state of affairs along with by failing of the natural world": obviously some editing debris here, but I'm not clear how to fix this myself.~~
I want to show that the homosexual society was regarded as wrong in the same way as the weather going wrong was. The gay society was a symptom of the corrupt world, hence not a favourable view.
OK. My problem was with "along with by", which was clearly something half-edited. Now I know what you meant to say, how about making it something like "homosexuality is required for official employment; Burgess treats this as one aspect of an unnatural state of affairs which includes violent warfare and natural disasters." Is "natural disasters" what is meant? Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rewrote per suggestion. Left the failing of natural world refered to weather patterns and plant growth, s i left that as is.

You have a couple of instances of "collected in <Book Title>", which I think isn't really necessary; I cut one in a clunky location but you might consider cutting these. Add in the relevant works as references if you like; or if the story is linked then you can consider that reference enough. I wouldn't fail for this but I think it would be an improvement.
Good idea, i'll put them as notes. I generally did if for important stories that occured in collection with other stories of interest to the topic.
Done Moved all to notes, except Delaney, as the collection does have multiple works mentioned here.

The opening of the paragraph about Northstar makes it appear that he was evidently gay from the 1979 beginning of the series. I think this should be reworded. There's also some detritus from a previous edit that I can't figure out what to do with -- the period after "comics" is followed by a lower-case "a". Should it be a comma?
I'll check. From the sources it seems that Northstar was hinted to be gay almost from the beginning, but never openly stated, and whether the creator intended it i can't find. I can add a sentence explaining he wasn't depicted as a gay character at inception.
Done Proof read a few arrors out, and added "not openly stated".

"Marvel received GLAAD’s 2005 Best Comic Book Award for its superhero comic book Young Avengers." Can you say why this follows the rest of the paragraph? Presumably there's a gay character in the Young Avengers; if so, it would be worth saying so explicitly.
A gay teenage couple in Y Avengers. I only put it in cos the source mentioned it as a balancing fact, i'll clarify.
Left this as is for now, have to look at sources again to figure out rewrite.
Done added clarification from source. I think this is the first one they ever won too, but have to look for sources to say that.
The source specifies gay characters, so I added that and have struck this objection. I think the mention of gay characters is necessary for clarity. Mike Christie (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the DC section, please eliminate the one-sentence paragraph at the start.~~
ok, was left over from before expansion.Yobmod (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure I was being clear: I don't (necessarily) mean that you should delete the sentence itself; just that one-sentence paragraphs are frowned on. You can merge it with another paragraph if you want to keep it. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, i replaced it with another sentence from sources, which is longer and more informative, but at the momment is still one sentence. Is it ok?
I'm striking this because I don't think it's a MOS requirement, but if you go to FAC I think you'll see objections to short paragraphs, particularly if they consist of only a single sentence. Mike Christie (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i'll expand it when i get some more comic book sources.Yobmod (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections on Buffy and Xena are quite short. How about starting the section on film with some general comments, including the material from these two sections, and then going on to discuss Star Trek and Torchwood?
I was thinking of maybe removing the subheading here altogether, but then couldn't figure where to put the "see also xxx"s. I jiggle it around.
Done Merged all the subsections, flows ok, as each has sources about influencing the next. I'll look for something about criticism of shows that are not inclusive, and try to make the star trek part seperate and less focussed on one series. But that is for FA :).
I did a little tweak on Buffy and Xena to avoid two short paras; revert if you don't like the flow. Fixed, either way. Mike Christie (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b) MOS.
~~You have both "proto sf" and "proto-sf"; pick one and stick with it. (I think "proto sf" looks better, but see what your sources use.)~~
will change one.
Done Went with proto-SF per source, and logic that this is not a type of "SF with adjective descriptor"

~~Titles of short stories should be in quotes but not italicized; you have several variations here.~~

Done Think i got them all.

~~I changed "Mythypoeic award winning" to "Mythopoeic-award-winning", per my reading of WP:HYPHEN; but I think you'd do well to find a rephrase to avoid that ugly double hyphen.~~
OK, i'll reword, or maybe put award in footnote too. Is there to show that gay characters even with AIDS didn't put readers or award givers off.

Struck for GA, but I still think this should be improved. Mike Christie (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
a) references
You quote Uranian Worlds as having a 2nd edition in 1993; according to the Nicholls/Clute EoSF, it had a first edition in 1983 and a revised edition in 1990, so I would think the 1993 edition is at least the third.
Whoops, i'll check. I only have first edition.
Done Date was wrong, not the edition.

You cite this sentence: "The frank treatment of sexual topics of earlier literature was abandoned" to the Nicholls. I don't see anything in that article to justify such a statement; can you point me at the supporting text?
I thought i paraphrased this directly from Nicholls from "Sex" in EoSF. Directly after the part about Gullivers travels, he mentions that such frank treatment was abandoned, no? (I havn't got my copy here at the moment).
Hmm. Here's what Nicholls says: "Swift's 18th-century frankness about sex was not to appear in sf again with the same force for more than two centuries." I don't think this is quite what you say in the article. Your comment is placed in a section about the 1920s and 1930s, so without the reference to Swift it appears that you mean that the 1920s marked a move away from frankness about sex. I think something needs to be done about that; either move the reference to the proto-sf section, or make it clear what time frame it's referring to. The change was between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, according to Nicholls, so that's what you need to convey. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed earlier to pre-20th century, moved to earlier in history (so doesn't single out pulps). Is ok?
No, I don't think so. The distinction Nicholls draws is between 18C and 19C, not between 19C and 20C. I think it would be best just to drop this completely; it's not specifically about homosexuality, and doesn't add enough to be worth the trouble of finding the right spot for the quote. It would be worth using in Sex in science fiction or some such article. Mike Christie (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholls is very specific that the change dates from Swift, not later, so I changed it to "nineteenth" and have struck my objection. I hope that works for you; if not we can work on a compromise wording. Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jepp, looks better. I'll move it to directly after the swift so it remains in the original context. thanks!Yobmod (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think you have to have an inline cite for the paragraph about Odd John, but if not, I'd suggest you include the book in the references.~~
I'll add one from Uranian worlds.

Done Added cite to appropriate page of UW.

You refer to Russ, Disch and Delany as openly gay, but this is not supported by the Nicholls. Russ and Disch were gay, certainly, but I recall a biographical piece in IASFM in (I think) the mid-1980s in which the interviewer drew a comment from Russ that she was a lesbian; the presentation was such that it was apparent the interviewer did not know this beforehand. I have no idea how Russ lived her personal life, but I don't recall seeing on any of her fiction (pre-1980 or so, anyway) any clear assertion that she was a lesbian. For Disch, the same comment applies at least up to 1980. In Delany's case, things are a little more complicated. I don't know when his first piece describing gay sexual experiences was published, but he was married for nineteen years and produced a daughter, so he may be described as bisexual too. (I haven't read his reminiscences, so I can't comment there.) Anyway, the reference you give, Nicholls, makes no statement about the sexuality of any of these authors, so I think you need to find another source or modify the statement somehow. As it stands it makes an assertion about the 1960s which doesn't appear to be true. I am assuming here that the value of "openly" is that it refers to how the reader experiences the fiction, not to how Russ (etc.) interacted with others socially. If you do mean that these authors were openly gay in their personal lives I am not sure how that's relevant (and you'd need a cite in that case, too).
The source for openly gay was Uranian worlds, but as you say, maybe they were out then (1980's: they both self identify in UW), but not earlier. I'll check and re-move or move it to later. It was to show that gay authors could be out and accepted in the SF community. There must be some examples...

(Edit)My Uranian world is copyright 1983, and therein states that Russ introduced radical lesbian feminism into SF. If people didn't know she was gay, they were just reading the wrong books!
Well, sure, anyone who read The Female Man would strongly suspect Russ was lesbian. But writers do write about lifestyles other than their own, so I don't think this is quite the same as saying she was openly gay. Take Marge Piercy, for example; The High Cost of Living is a 1978 novel about a radical lesbian, but one couldn't conclude from that book that Piercy was too. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delany and disch are now sourced. I removed Russ for now - lots saying she is gay, nothing before the 1980s.
Sorry to be a pest about this, but can you just confirm that the sources you use say that they were openly gay prior to 1970? I think this is a really important point; I was a teenager in the 1970s and never noticed any mention on the packaging of Disch or Delany's work that they were gay. The most likely place for them to have acknowledged their sexuality would have been in New Worlds, which I didn't read at the time (I have a mostly complete set and can check any specific references you need, by the way) but which could easily have said such a thing. Their paperback releases did not make it clear. It's important because I think a key moment in sf publishing history is when authors can acknowledge their sexuality without worrying about repercussions in terms of sales or even censorship. I didn't think that point had been reached by 1970, so although I'm willing to believe Disch and Delany were open about their sexuality socially, I'm finding it hard to believe they were so open professionally in the 1960s, and would like a very definite cite. Mike Christie (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify yet again, the cites you have are good enough for "openly gay"; it's just the implied time at which they became open. The Disch, for example, could be read as implying that it wasn't until On Wings of Song that most readers might start to guess he was gay. Disch says he was out in 1968; he clearly means socially out, though, not professionally. Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disch says 68, delany is early 70s. I can move his paragraph down to make Delaney outing fit more in the timeline? And i'll remove the "openly gay authors" line, so it doesn't imply their sexuality was open in the writing too strongly. Ah, found a source that dates Delaney as the 60s: SF/F author and critic Samuel R. Delany was back in 1960, when he identified himself as a "homosexual. I'm married. I've written five novels in three years. I've got this thing about subways: and I feel kind of like I'm coming apart at the seams".

Actually, I'm a bit worried by this entire paragraph; I would assume you're using the Nicholls ref just for the last sentence or so, but that article doesn't really cover the ground you do. It doesn't say anything about "sympathetic" depictions of alternative sex in New Wave sf; instead it refers to "explicit" sex becoming commonplace.
Sympathetic definitly comes from somewhere, i'll check sources. I tried to avoid duplicating the major sources too often, as it looked ugly, but i guess it is necessary.
Found it, was in Encylopedia of homosexuality. I see the stupid link is broken, and wayback machine doesn`t find individual entries :-/.

~~This sentence: "In later works, Delany blurs the line between science fiction and gay pornography" isn't supported by the only cite for that paragraph, the Nicholls.~~
Whoops, i'll find the correct cite. I know i read it!

Ok, online sources like this exist:, but the original source is Delany intro to The Mad Man that the work is a “pornutopic fantasy: a set of people, incidents, places, and relations among them that never happened and could not happen for any number of surely self-evident reasons”. Added that source.

The interpretive remarks about Dhalgren aren't a reason to fail GA, but I think the article would be better if you could find critical coverage that could be referenced to support your comments.
Will look - i'm sure something exists - would probably better specifically attributed too a critic anyway.

Sohortened it for now.

~~Can you source Tiptree's bisexuality? I wasn't aware of it; I think many readers familiar with her writing might be surprised, so a reference is necessary.~~
It's in her biography (which i got from a library). I'll try to get page number for source from her article's editors.
Added online sources stating it, and ref to book (still waiting on page number, but can be removed if necessary and stand on the other cites).

I don't have a copy of "Nine Lives" with me, so I can't check it, and it must be over twenty years since I read it last, so I can't be sure, but I don't recall an explicit sexual connection between the clones. As I recall it was more about a psychic/psychological connection. Can you just confirm for me that the sexual link is explicit and not a matter of interpretation?
Well, not "explicit", but one of the non-clones is pretty put out by what they get up to when all in bed together, no? I think i had a source saying "UKLG wrote many stories that treated LGBT themes...", and this story i used as an example. You can think which they were talking about?
I'll see what I can dredge up. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found this quote in the GLBTQ encylopedia "In "Nine Lives" (1969), for example, Ursula K. Le Guin traces the grief that overwhelms the survivor of a ten-clone team when the other nine members are killed. Bisexual relations among the clones intensify the sense of loss. "
That's good enough. Mike Christie (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest either reducing "famous" in "famous LGBT bookstore" to something that doesn't express an opinion, or sourcing it. I'm prepared to believe it's prominent, but I hadn't heard of it myself and would like to see a source.
I'd no idea it was famous either, but it seems to be amoungst the gay community. I'LL source it or remove famous.
Done Removed famous, at least until someone writes an article to get rid of the red-link.

I like the intent of the Duane Smolke paragraph, but I don't think it works at the moment. To start with, I think you invert the sequence: "SF is also occasionally produced by specialist gay publishing houses; a prominent example is ..." A more serious problem is that it's not clear to me that Smolke's book is in fact prominent. The citation is only to the Stonewall award itself, which may be reliable for the fact of the award, but can't be used to assert prominence. Can you support this with some reference to an external support commenting on the importance of either Smolke's novel or the award?
I didn't add this book, but then i search "gay SF" on google, this is in the first links. Maybe just better marketing than others? I can remove prominent and add other examples that won non-genre awards? With cites saying they are gay and SF and from a non-genre publisher.
"Better marketing"; that could be it. I think if you can't find better sources for this, you should certainly weaken it in some way. It's not at all clear that Smolke is really a notable example of anything here. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The information about the founding of the Daughters of Bilitis needs a citation.~~
OK, this isn't from me either. I'll try and find a cite.
Removed this for now. There is a cite in the Forrest J. Ackerman page, but not sure which part of the sentence there it confirms (the he helped DoB, or wrote lesbian novels, or both). I asked for clarification.Yobmod (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, is there some way to demonstrate the importance of Naiad Press or Bella Books? This seems similar in intent to the note on Duane Smolke, in that you're looking at situations where the publishing source is focused on gay fiction, and sf is simply a genre. Can these two paragraphs (properly sourced) be brought together?
This sentence was the only piece of distinct info from merging the Lesbian SF article. Unfortunately i could find no source. As far as i can tell, they produce(d) no important SF, not had any writers that particularly wrote SF. There were no editors to ask for sources, so i'll look again, then remove it if not. (Maybe 2 sources: 1 for specialist lesbian press, then one for example of SF author they published? If so will merge with other para.)
I've merged them together. No sources for notability yet though, so if it is a problem, would be ok with moving it to talk until i can find some sources.
I'm still not convinced on notability but this is OK for GA. Mike Christie (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites for them being the biggest lesbian press in the world, and a primary source showing that ask for submissions of SF/F.

I took a look at the WP article on The Picture of Dorian Gray, since I didn't recall "overt" homosexuality; it seems to agree with my (rather faded) recollection. There is clearly a distinctly homoerotic current to the book, but are you confident you can justify "overtly homosexual"?
Done Quote from Uranian worlds entry: "Both the horror and homosexual elements seem tame by today's standards, but at the time of publication "The picture of Dorian Gray" shocked the reading public its sensuality and decadance. In edition to fleeting references to overtly homosexual characters, the "romantic freindship" of the painter Basil Hallward is a major componenet of the novel, and there are homosexual allusions to Gray's unspecified sins." IMO it is enough, at least some characters were called overtly gay; clarifying it to point out what was overt and what implied would make it longer than needed, or?
Good enough for me. Mike Christie (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b) Reliable sources.
A general note about citation formatting; GA doesn't require any specific citation format, but the bare links you use in a few cases are considered ugly and would definitely need to be fixed if you want to go on to WP:FAC. I'd suggest you pick a recent featured article and scan it; there are a couple of different styles. I don't use the {{Harvnb}} template, but I know there are those who swear by it. Anyway, not an issue for GA, but it would be good to clean these up.
Yeah, i've had this in mind, i just hate the templates. They always confuse me with too many fields! Will get around to it after GA though.

question: If i format all the references in a consistant way, similar to the output of the templates, can i choose to not use the templates for a FA? Referencing introductions / essays / blurbs etc are much easier without the templates (Eg, the last cite i added was to the disclaimer in The Mad Man, but the citation template has no field to give chapter/essay titles, and adding it manually puts it seperate from the page number).Yobmod (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather dubious about the use of fantasticfiction.co.uk, since I don't know anything about the editorial approach at that site. It could be one enthusiastic fan, or a commercial enterprise with an editing staff. Can you find a better source for the "Different Light" bookstore name? If not, I think you might consider cutting that fact out. You could also try contacting the bookstore and asking if there has been any press coverage or reference material that mentions them and the story of their name. I had a look on their website (which would be regarded as reliable for this sort of thing) and unfortunately they don't mention it.
Done Already had a second source. I also have no idea about FF (i think they just quote blurbs and publisher quotes though), which is why i used 2 sources.

~~You have a ref to the Amazon page for Bishop's book Unicorn Mountain; this would be better as a ref directly to Bishop's book, since Amazon isn't a reliable source for anything but the book itself.~~
I think this ref is to the publisher weekly quote on the amazon page, so it is the source for part of the critical response, not the plot. I don't know how to find out which PW it was in from there. Still needs to be changed?
If you're using the reviews there as a source of description then I'll strike this, but I don't actually see a PW quote on that page. I suggest you make the ref of the form "John Clute, "title of review", quoted on <amazon cite>" or something like that. Anyway, struck for GA. Mike Christie (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to re-write this anyway, and read a bunch of reviews. cSomeone must say something about it's LGBT importance.

The Gaylactic Network information is supported only by a cite to that organization's website. I think you need to independently establish that this group is noteworthy in this context; it's clearly connected, but at the moment an independent reader can't be sure from your article that the Gaylactic Network isn't just one chap in a bedsit in Fulham with a lot of time on his hands. I don't say it is, just that we need some independent sourcing here. Has any reliable survey of gay fiction or of gay sf mentioned it as a noteworthy organization? Actually I'm not sure you establish the notability of the Lambda Award or Queer Horror properly either; anything you can do there would be good. The Lambda should be easy; it's the best known of them, I believe, and may even be mentioned in the Nicholls, which would settle it.
The awards should be easy enough, if listed by locus i think they are notable enough. The Gaylactic network thing i'll have to look for (of course they claim to be notable :-) ).

Done A university keeps their old records [1], and the SFWA newsletter mentions the network and award they give [2], local SF clubs mention it as their unberella org [3], non-profit [4], another university mentions it as a course resource and SciFi.com covers them [http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue282/news.html. Nb, I'll add one or 2 of these, the others i listed to copy over to other wiki articles.

Can you support Beek's Books as a reliable source? It seems to be opinion by an individual. If so, I suspect you'd be better off citing whatever you can directly to the relevant comic issues. Opinion and summarizing critical comments would be harder to do that way; I think you'd have to find another source.
Darn, i have no idea. The site was so comprehensive, i assumed it wasn't a one man show. I added another cite to Northstar anyway, which basically agrees, but doesn't have the details. I'll look for more....
Struck, since you're using it for description, not critical opinion, but it would be good to replace. Mike Christie (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese site I'll take on faith; I assume you read Japanese? A translation in the note would be useful. There's a policy statement on doing this somewhere which I can dig if you're interested. Not necessary for GA though.
I share an office with a Mongolian who speaks japanese, who confirmed it is about Yuri at least. As the sentence is not controversial and has an English ref anyway, i'm easy about whether it stays or goes.
Without a translation, and without an active editor of this article who can translate it for us, I would suggest cutting it. I will strike this since I suspect it's a good source but I wouldn't leave it there if I were you, since you can't really defend it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cut.

About.com is frowned on, but I think is probably OK for the cite you are using here, since you're quoting an interview by someone.

Can you improve on the popmatters.com source? Surely others have said Buffy is groundbreaking.
I'll look. But is Popmatters not a reliable source on pop culture? It seemed to be a respectable established web-magazine. I added an MTV one too. Lots of places call it ground-breaking, but these specifically say in the context of its characters sexuality. I'll ask the Buffy project to see if anyone really reads any the Buffystudies stuff.
c) No original research. Some of the comments above could be regarded as WP:OR issues, but I'll assume they're referencing problems for the moment, so this passes.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
a) Major aspects:
I wouldn't fail the article for this, but I am slightly surprised that the article makes no comment about Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness as a ground-breaking work. I was under the impression is that this was both influential at the time, and the subject of much relevant critical commentary in the decades since. Is that not the case?
LHOD darkness is in the article. I didn't write much more, cos discussion of it mostly centres on Gender rather than sexuality (the only sex in it is "straight"). It deserves the mention it has definitly, i'll add a sentence about importance, which is easy to source.

Done Expanded LeGuin para slightly, and added more cites. Even UW mentions that the sex in LHOD is straight though, and it is not marked as major Bi interest (UW has a code to describe books as major/minor LGB or T, so only those with major are getting included unless something specifically interesting is said, like for Heinlein).
Fair enough. It is indeed straight sex, and I suppose it's true that it argues more strongly for dismissal of gender role assumptions as it does for variations in sexual relations. If you're reflecting the sources you're in good shape.
b) Focused:
Can you comment on the inclusion of the Queer Horror award, given the comment in the lead that queer horror was not considered in the article? You do mention dark fantasy as a topic for the queer horror award so that may be enough to justify inclusion.
Yeah, the Queer horror award doesn't go to only horror, so think is ok. Also i didn't specifically exclude horror in this article, it is just that the in depth discussion has it's own article, and they have generally not been groundbreaking. So Carmilla and the Lesbian Vampire meme are in there, but is not much more i could find in general spec fic souces. I'll add some on the more imprtant authors /works (esp. Clive Barker, Poppy Brite), but though coverage was enough for now until FA. What do you think?
You've convinced me.

I am not a comics or manga reader, so I may be unaware of the importance of the comics/manga characters and titles covered. However, it does seem to me that the section on comics and manga is unduly long compared to other sections. It's twice as long as the section on the 1960s and 1970s, for example, which was surely by far the most important period for the development of LGBT sf. It might be argued that this section should be cut completely, and moved to a separately article on homosexuality in comics and manga, but I think it would be OK to leave in a shorter version of it. As it stands it seems a bit unbalanced. Given that I'm not an expert on this I wouldn't fail the article for this reason, but I'd like your opinion on the relative weight of these sections.
I already moved this to a seperate article (LGCT character in comics), and trimmed it slightly. And the manga has already 2 other articles on this (yaoi and yuri). So i wrote this as a summary of 3 articles (did i misplace the see alsos?) with 2 other big contributions (from comics code and Batman articles). Could trim it it even more and not seperate DC and Marvel, removing all but very prominent examples, but think that as an overview article, this has to mention something about all these. as they don't fit in to the timeline for literature nicely (sources that mention lit generally ignore comics and films and vice versa), i think summary sections are easiest.
I'm going to let this go; I am not 100% convinced this isn't out of balance, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
I removed some more (all characters that only had primary sources).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
a) Tagged and fair use.
No issues; pass.
b) Appropriate; suitable captions.
The lead image is captioned with information that, though sourced, doesn't appear elsewhere in the article. If you can find a good way to add opinions about Greek mythology informing both sf and LGBT fiction to the article, then the image is fine; as it stands the problem is that the lead shouldn't contain anything that you can't find in the rest of the article. Personally I think the connection is a little weak -- what understanding of homosexuality in speculative fiction does a reader gain by considering the incidence of homosexuality in Greek mythology? Speculative fiction is a modern genre; Greek mythology is a source of themes, not a precursor to the genre in any way. Actually "source of themes" might be a fruitful way to look at it. Well, that's just my opinion; what counts is what the sources say.
OK, i can certainly source Speculative fiction includes Mythology from someone (the spec fic portal here claims it too), and should be able to think of examples of modern works in which gfamously Bi or gay greek gods remain as such. The source says it is a precursor, so i'll try and include that somewhere in proto SF section or the first section, when i add the para on defining spec fic.

but i'm thinking of making a simple image to go in the lead that will be more general, and somehow represent the intersection between LGBT and SF. The first attempt was rejected as original research. Do you think a modified version of the lead image in Religion in speculative fiction would work? replacing the religion symbols with gender symbols representing relationships? I don't think it would be OR, with a caption saying something like "SF representation of LGBT themes have included showing planets in which homosexual relationships are the norm".
Unfortunately I don't think this is really worth doing. This is a matter of opinion and you might find others who disagree. I think images should be used to enhance the articles by illuminating facts covered in the text; what you suggest is more interpretation than illustration. How about using the cover of The Female Man, surely the single most important gay science fiction novel ever written? Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i've been told that using the cover of an important book is unlikely to pass FA for copyright reasons, as the article is not about the book specifically, os cannot be used for identification. Is only acceptable if the cover itself is notable in context - An admin already removed others :-/. So i think a general free image would help the lead (purely for prettyness, true, but still an improvment imo) and the fair use images can go to the sections where they are most illustrative (eg, mythology photo to the proto-SF section or critical section).Yobmod (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right it might be hard to get a good fair use rationale for a book cover unless you discuss the cover image itself. I still think you either need to support the caption for your lead image, or cut it; at the moment I'd suggest just cutting it.
So, i checked the current source, it says "In fantasy, they include deities from classical mythology" and Delany's work "Tak(es) on human bodies, the aliens reenact a colliding set of stories from mythology and popular culture". So i think in that context, it can stay, either as a precursor to SF or a current facet of fantasy. However i agree it is not best for the lead, so i moved it to the first section (which is where i will be writing about mythology / spec fic / horror /pre-SF to explain the genres and how they apporach the subject). Looks ok there, given that there will be more context? (Mythological figures are already written about there as allowing reinterpretation of gender and sexuality.
That works for me.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

-- Mike Christie (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly forget - many thanks! This is the most useful suggestion for improving the article since i started, even after RfC, peer review, requests for copyedits, multiple project assement requests. :-D.Yobmod (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; the article is interesting and it's a pleasure to work on it. Mike Christie (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also be away this weekend, so will start with the major changes on Monday. Some minor suggestions already acted upon.Yobmod (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]