Wikipedia:Peer review/Homosexuality in speculative fiction/archive2

Homosexuality in speculative fiction

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

It passed it's GA, and i've added 60 more references from unique sources since. The are no more general sources i'm planning to check ,so i think it is comprehensive enough for FA. But i need the wrtiing and flow checking, so that the writing sounds good enough.

Thanks, Yobmod (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I will be pleased to check the prose. The other aspects of the article will need someone else's comments, as I have no expert knowledge. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have some general comments, and some specific points on prose in the first few sections.

• General points
  • My overall impression from reading the first few sections is that the prose is written in a style which is likely to be inaccessible to the general reader. I suspect it will very hard work for people who are not post-graduates in literature with a specialism in this genre. Is it possible to make it a little more reader-friendly?

Hmmm, i have no degrees in literature, and i wrote it. But i guess i am over-educated :-). I'll try to make the lead more approachable.

Anything you can do within reason. I'm not suggesting a dumbing down, just a nod in the direction of WP:Accessibility. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • What is the purpose of the infobox, beyond providing links? The unexplained diagram looks like another mark of exclusivity.

Just links, based on making the articles in them linked enough for a featured topic. They also recommend use of a free image to identify the topic. I used the infobox template, but it more proerly a navbox in purpose, similar to other topic navboxes in featured articles. I don't understand the exclusivity part - it is a free image used for the "Sex in SF" topic, the template only has the lead position as there is no image that would be better in it's place (i tried other free images, but they were too specific.) I based it one navboxes like the one in Renewable energy in Scotland featured article, which have a user-generated image and links. (Nb. I've made the image and box as small as possible while keeping the links on one line).

OK I now understand the function of the box, diagram and all, so disegard my earlier comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Most people think that SF stands for "science fiction", yet from the word go you have appropriated it, without explanation, for the broader category of speculative fiction. This is vaguely unsettling to the reader, who has not really had the term "speculative fiction" explained.

SF can mean either, according to their articles, although science fiction is more common. I used it for spec fic here so i could write SF to include everything throughout, and specified science fiction when the source did so. I added a note to further explain that it is being used in this way. Otherwise i could write "speculative fiction" every time, but it is used much more often and is longer (my poor abused fingers were that was the basis of my reasoning :-). Speculative fiction is linked, and it's use is explained in the first sentence (which i just expanded a bit) Should i write more? I thought that people who wanted to learn about speculative fiction beyond the definition given would click the link. Or i could rename the article to "homosexuality in science fiction, fantasy, horror, and related genres" but i was hoping to avoid that, as people might also question the homosexuality part, so hat might have to be unpacked in the title too. I wonder if i could get the FA with the longest title? "Homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality in science fiction, fantasy, horror, and related genres" would be quite a mouthful :-). That's what she said! Hahahah :-D.

I like the footnote explaining your use of "SF", but I think it is in the wrong place. "Homosexuality in speculative fiction" is the article's title, and MOS requires this to be bolded and unlinked in the first line of the article. Linking "homosexuality" is surely unnecessary, anyway - everyone knows the meaning. So the article should begin: "Homosexuality in speculative fiction refers to..." Then, in the middle of the second paragraph you could use "speculative fiction (SF)[1]" in place of the present "SF". That would preserve the titling convention and give you an unobtrusive explanatory footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll change it, but it has gone back and forth already. I thought the MOS says not to bold descriptive terms as titles. Eg History of Radio should not be bolded/delinked.

• • MoS issue: Date ranges should include endashes, not hyphens, e.g. "1920–30s", not "1920-1930s"

Will change.

• Lead
  • "...they can be more restrained" would read better as "they are often more restrained"

You mean the contrained part? I changed one to restricted. I think one was already "often" and that got changed to "can be" during the GA review. I'll fiddle some more while simplifying.

I think I got a bit muddled here, but it reads OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The last sentence of the lead is too long, needs splitting. Suggest full stop after "controversy", then: "This lack..." etc

Will do.

• Critical analysis
  • First paragraph follows very closely wording used in the lead, and gives the reader the immediate though: "I've just read this. "Can the wording be rephrased a little differently?

That's how i always contsruct leads - literally copying sentences from the main text, and letting editor drift carry them away. I'll rewrite when simplifying the language.

• • What is the "science fiction community" - Does this refer generally to people who read it, or to people who write it, or is it a description of science fiction buffs or enthusiasts?

all of the above! :-). SF community is like the LGBT community, is just a vague term meaning people associted with science fiction. Should i link it? (fandom is the closest term we have an article on). Science fiction community is the term used in the sources - i could define it if the link is not enough, although cannot promise that the definition i cite is the same one they are using in the other sources.

Just a suggestion, but if you referred first time to the "broad science fiction community" I would get a better sense of the term as inclusing readers, writers and fans, without a need for links or further explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The construction "Gay-" and "lesbian science fiction" looks awkward and would read better as "Gay" and "lesbian" science fiction.

Took out quotes anyway. But hyphen is to show that the source used gay science fiction and lesbian science fiction, not "gay and lesbian science fiction". Removing made it ambiguous i thought?

Down to you, really. I was just saying that I found the construction awkward, but others might not. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The last paragraph reads like a book promo, and looks out of place. Who says it's "authoritative", anyway?

The sources say :-). I can add more - it is essentially the only book of its type, so has no competition, and is referenced by everyone. I've moved it to the time period it was produced, and will expand on its importance, instead of the current description.

• Proto-SF: en-dash required in AD date range

will change

• The pulp era, 1920–30s
  • En dash irequired n date range

will change

• • Who defined this as the "pulp era", within this date range?

I'll add a source defining pulp era.

• • Re the term "famously prudish", does the source use this phrase. Even if it does, the phrase should be in quotes - it's the source's description, not a hard fact.

will remove anyway - think example is not needed here (unless someone asks for one).

• Golden Age - again, the date range in the section title needs an en dash, and again, we need to know who defined this era as a "golden age".

Will add a source. I assumed the link would be enough, or i'll be sourcing every single word to a disctionary! :-).

It's a long article, and it is likely that my comments will come in segments. Meanwhile, perhaps you would respond to the above. Brianboulton (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

More comments, next two sections:

• New Wave era: Same comments as above about the naming of this era, and the need for an en dash in the dates range.

Will add cite.

• • The section begins with a series of assertive statements, none of which appear to be cited. If the citations are to the references after the 5th sentence, I don't think this is adequate; the strong statements need to be more specifically cited.

OK. Should i reduplicate the citation for every sentence there? I thought it was overkill, but don't mind pointing out at FAC that an univolved editor wanted cites.

What you have done should be enough. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • "was publicly gay since 1968" "Was" and "since" don't go together, try "had been" for "was"
  • "this came out" sounds a bit clumsy. "This was reflected...", perhaps?
  • "mosaic novel" term needs explaining
  • Overall, my feeling is that this section has rather too many examples; the picture would be clear with half the number, and I would seriously consider cutting the section back.

The reason it has so many examples compared to previous sections is that almost every important work or author is from this time. Beofre there was little, and after they were so commonplace as to be not noteworthy. For this 10-20 years all the boundaries were broken. I only used examples that has something specifically written about the portrayal of homosexuality in a source, so none were chosen by me.

• New wave era
  • "depictions of unrealistic lesbians" - not sure about "unrealistic". Maybe "fantasy", or "fantasized"?

Fantasy would be confusing in this context, as it sould be "lesbians in the fantasy genre".

• • I'm unsure about the use of "resurgence" in the sentence beginning "In the 1990s..." Resurgence suggests that something existed before, died down and was then revived - a new surge. This doesn't square with your narrative, so is resurgence the best word?
  • Plase check name "Meliassa". Is it "Melissa"?

whoops, typo.

• • I don't understand this sentence: "Scott has reported that reviewers called some of these works 'too gay' for mixing cyberpunk with political themes". Perhaps a comma is needed after "too gay", but even so, why is this mixture too gay?

Too gay for enjoyment maybe? I don't know how anything can be too gay, but that's what they said. (or what she said they said). I'll try to re-arrange.

Source said "some reviewers who said that about Trouble and Her Friends, that it's too gay, these kind of cool cyberpunks where you just drop in all this weird politics", so i don't know which part they found too gay, just that the mixture was. I could say "Scott has reported that reviewers called some of these works 'too gay', disliking the inclusion of political themes in a cyberpunk narrative", if you don't think that crosses into OR. And it still doesn't explain how they got from there to too gay.

Your suggested sentence works fine for me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • The sentence beginning: "Many of Scott's other SF works..." is too long; there are probably three sentences here.

Will split and shorten.

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments so far! I've now read so many books on this, it is difficult to remember that some of these terms might never have been heard by non-SF readers.Yobmod (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A little more:-

• LGBT SF and the sci-fi community
  • 5th line something missing - "...and aided the in the publication..."
  • 2nd para: should "such meeting" be "such meetings"?
  • 3rd para: Single sentence paras are frowned on at FAC! This one could easily be attached to the previous para.

• Awards: A very small point, but shouldn't the awards be listed in order of age, i.e. the Lambda first? (No date given for inception of the Tiptree award)

• Comics and manga: in the last sentence I suggest the phrasing should be "which generates criticism" rather than "and generate criticism".

• Marvel (and subsequent subsection headings: Why are all these level 4 rather than level 3 headings?

Level 4 as i limited the TOC to not show them.

That's all for the moment, will finish off tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A few final thoughts on the Film & TV section:

• You need a source for the statement that the Hays Cod was written by a Jesuit priest. I can't see anything in the references that supports this. Unless it can be reliably sourced, the statement should be withdrawn.

Will source, i know i read it.

• "10–15%" needs an en dash, not a hyphen. Likewise, after "slash fiction", though this could be an emdash.
• Second paragraph: two late sentences each begin "The series..." I've lost sight of which series you mean, so can this be clarified?
• The term "minor canon character is slightly confusing, since a minor canon is also an Anglican Church dignitary. Could you rephrase to "a minor character from the canon"?

That's me done now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! Will be gradually working through all the comments, so it was a great help.Yobmod (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Christie - comments

• "SF has also depicted a plethora of alien methods of reproduction and sex, some of which can be viewed as homo- or bisexual through a human binary-gender lens." The second half of the sentence isn't very clear. I can guess at a couple of possible meanings; can you clarify?

For example, the hermaphordites in Left Hand of Darkness are not male or female, and hence cannot be gay or lesbian. And yet the book is considered to be ground-breaking for gay SF, because readers naturally associate 2 characters of none-opposite genders as being gay. But a society without gender cannot have homosexuality, therefore is only the readers preconceptions that gender must be binary that makes it of interest as LGBT lit. I thought i'd already linked Gender binary, would it help if i did?

Example from source: "Queer theory emphasises fluidity and liminality, not fixed binaries or alternatives....given the coincidence between the history of SF and the history of modern sexuality, SF can hardly escape the influence of a culture in which epistomologies of sexuality have become so naturalised as to be invisible".

which i think means people cannot stop thinking in terms of gender, therefore SF works that don't use human (ie. binary) genders still get forced into that framework in the readers mind, and are precieved as "gay". So the sentence needs to say something about how the imaginary sex methods in SF are regarded as gay due to readers preconceptions that "normal" means having 2 complimentary genders.

• "not contradict mainstream societies assumptions": do you mean "societies'" or "society's"? Either way, it's missing an apostrophe.

Probalby the second. I'll read and decide.

• I agree with Brian that "famously prudish" would be good to put in quotes. Beyond that, if you're going to mention Tarrant, I think it's misleading to call her an editor -- her duties, as far as authors were concerned, were only those of a copyeditor. (And I wouldn't bother to redlink her either, but that's your call.)

I think i'll take her out altogether, leaving general sentence. Hopefully no-one at FAC will then ask for an example .-)

• "but also suffers from the affront that the relationship creates to his own morals": who suffers -- John, or the boy?
• The Golden Age section has two consecutive sentences with a "however".
• "attempts at portraying homosexuals sympathetically or non-stereotypically were met with hostility": the mention of "hostility" is quite an interesting point. Does the source give examples? The only example I can think of offhand is Campbell's reaction to "The World Well Lost", and you mention that further down. It might be better to move the paragraph on Sturgeon up to second, to connect the mention of hostility with that anecdote.

The source says "often...hostility", and then move directly to discussion the Sturgeon story. So i moved that paragraph up as suggested.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. as usual. What do you think about the "too many examples in New Wave" point above? Shortening that section would make me want to shorten all the others to keep due weight. I could still split a "History in Lit" sub article out, but had decided to only do that if the whole article got too big.Yobmod (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)