- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nude for Satan
edit- ... that Nude for Satan was rejected by the board of censors in Italy due to "continuous obscene sequences, some of them even portraying lesbian intercourses"? Roberto Curti's Italian Gothic Horror Films, 1970-1979 book (2017). Page 126.
- Reviewed: Gene Rambo
Created by Andrzejbanas (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
Good to go! It's been expanded in the last several days, it's long enough, the hook is cited, it's within policy, and the QPQ has been met. Futurist110 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This article needs copyediting before it goes on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I gave it a bit of a go-over, is it better now @Cwmhiraeth:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I find it distasteful to see mention in the Release section of the actual scenes that the censor wanted to remove. That section has still got soma basic errors ("the producer was suggested to make cut", "doctors", "main") but I don't personally wish to copyedit it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Distasteful or not, (see WP:CENSOR), but I understand if you do not want to subject yourself to reviewing an article on a film titled Nude for Satan. MOS:FILM also suggests to include information on these topics, specifically "Coverage of ratings" which can include "how a film is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a film to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a film's rating was appropriately assigned." I believe how homosexual relationships are viewed in a film from this period and its production country to be very relevant @Cwmhiraeth:. Either way, I gave it a go over, again and fixed your edits, but I'm bound to miss things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
My main objections have now been met but I would be glad of another opinion on this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Although the film, especially the rejected version, seems to have been fairly prurient, the article on it does not appear overly indulgent. Made some minor copyedits, which should resolve the remaining English issues. I'm approving ALT0, which has an inline citation. I'm also suggesting ALT1, which is a bit less gratuitous.
- ALT1: ... that one critic described the plot of Nude for Satan as "the Devil is bored and wants to have an orgy. Oh, and Calderoni gets molested by a giant spider"? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will give a tick to ALT1, which in my view is much hookier than the original. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Distasteful or not, (see WP:CENSOR), but I understand if you do not want to subject yourself to reviewing an article on a film titled Nude for Satan. MOS:FILM also suggests to include information on these topics, specifically "Coverage of ratings" which can include "how a film is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a film to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a film's rating was appropriately assigned." I believe how homosexual relationships are viewed in a film from this period and its production country to be very relevant @Cwmhiraeth:. Either way, I gave it a go over, again and fixed your edits, but I'm bound to miss things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I find it distasteful to see mention in the Release section of the actual scenes that the censor wanted to remove. That section has still got soma basic errors ("the producer was suggested to make cut", "doctors", "main") but I don't personally wish to copyedit it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I gave it a bit of a go-over, is it better now @Cwmhiraeth:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
