Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School

It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 29, 2022 by Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School is a 1996 American documentary film directed by Debra Chasnoff and Helen Cohen. It provides educators with information on how to teach elementary schoolchildren to be tolerant of gay and lesbian people. The film was noted as the "first of its kind" and was generally well received, although there was some backlash from conservatives. It was released in several film festivals and had screenings in the 2000s.

It's Elementary did not receive much support from PBS due to backlash from the American Family Association. Prior to airing the film, television stations received calls, letters, and e-mails from people who did not want PBS program directors to broadcast it. The film was awarded the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary, Best Documentary at the Reeling Film Festival, and the Silver Spire from the San Francisco International Film Festival, among other awards. The film had two sequels: That's A Family! and It's Still Elementary.

Most recent similar article(s): Trembling Before G-d
Main editors: SL93
Promoted: January 28, 2022
Reasons for nomination: This is my first FA. The last FA main page appearance for a similar film topic was in 2008.
Support as nominator. SL93 (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "there was some backlash from conservatives" could be better written as "there was backlash from a few conservatives". Also, I'll suggest replacing few "The film" with "It" wherever appropriate. Otherwise, looking good! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh I changed the conservatives bit. I changed "The film" in to "It" in a few places. SL93 (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (TC)
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Kavyansh, I disagree—the article doesn't characterize it as "a few" conservatives, because that implies that the level of backlash was small and localized to conservative fringes. The article should match the blurb, and in this case of disagreement, I'm with the article—someone had their ambassadorship sunk because they merely donated to the production of the film. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, @Theleekycauldron, the featured version of the article—Special:Diff/1068437942—states that "there was some backlash from conservatives" (emphasis mine). So I thing either the current version of the blurb, or the featured version of the article would be fine; it was just a suggestion. Rest, I'll support the blurb in either case! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I would rather "some" than "a few", but I'll support either way as well :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Theleekycauldron here—there is a very meaningful difference between "some backlash from conservatives" and "backlash from a few conservatives", and the historical facts appear to support the first wording. Given the prevailing consensus here, I'm reverting the change to the blurb and article. Also, given that we need to have in mind a global audience, not all of whom will be familiar with U.S. politics, I'm adding a wikilink to Conservatism in the United States. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: good blurb, no issues. — Bilorv (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks mostly alright. A few nitpicks, apart from the "some" vs. "a few" distinction above. I'd change the start of the last sentence from The film had the two sequels; to The film had two sequels:, dropping the the and switching the semicolon to a colon. The list of awards also needs copyediting. I would change it to just the Reeling Film Festival, as that's how they seem to brand themselves in all but the most formal settings. The phrase "among others" also needs a comma before it, but that'd require us to move to semicolons for the main list, so I'd instead suggest reordering, making the full sentence The film was awarded the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary, the CINE Golden Eagle for Teacher Education and Best Educational Film at the Northern Lights International Film Festival, and Best Documentary at the Frameline Film Festival and the Reeling Film Festival, among other awards. Once these things have been addressed, it should be good to go, as a newly promoted FA. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb I made the changes. I also replaced the film festival that does not have an article with one that does per your article talk page comment, but I'm not entirely sure it matters. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does matter. The awards listed for this film in our article lead will help define it in history, so we want to make sure we're listing all of the important ones and only the important ones. If you don't have any opinions about which awards are sufficiently significant to warrant mention, that makes me concerned you didn't research thoroughly enough.
The blurb here is looking better, but I'm still seeing prose improvements that could be made. There are a lot of sentences that begin with The film, although I'm not sure we can do much about that. The third sentence is largely redundant to the second, so I'd prefer to see them merged (which would also be an opportunity to make it clearer earlier that this is a film for educators, not kids). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb "If you don't have any opinions about which awards are sufficiently significant to warrant mention, that makes me concerned you didn't research thoroughly enough." Okay, I was being calm, but now I'm starting to become very annoyed. That is a huge assumption. I did a ton of research to bring the article this far. I have been doing a lot of research since you brought up the film festival issue and I can't find anything so I don't know what you expect of me with that. SL93 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I originally had a sentence that was clearer, but I was told somewhere else to reword it to their suggestion. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the two sentences. I will leave the film festival bit and you do you, petty or not. I can't control that because I can only write what sources cover. I can't make sources pop out of nowhere. It seems to me that the film festival should be disregarded as undue weight per no coverage. If you're suggesting this article shouldn't be a FA because of one film festival that has no coverage, that would bring me from annoyed to very angry. SL93 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry my comments came across as petty—I made them since I want the article and the blurb to be the best they can be, as this is an important topic. Scrutiny is something that comes with the territory at the FA level. That said, my concerns about the awards selection aren't significant enough to be a blocker, so I'm okay just letting that drop. Regarding the second/third sentence issue, you more just compounded them than actually merged them. What I had in mind was more something like ...and Helen Cohen. It provides educators with information on how to teach elementary schoolchildren to be tolerant of gay and lesbian people. The film was noted as the "first of its kind" and was generally well received... Does that look good to you? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb I changed it to your suggestion. I honestly don't know how I would have reacted if you continued to focus on a film festival with no coverage. I normally wouldn't do such a thing, but your comments made me think of the One Day at HorrorLand FA when an editor came out of the blue to say that the article is non-notable and should be merged into one or more other articles. Passing WP:BK with the many notable adaptations were not acceptable for some reason. It already did pass DYK and GA in the past also. FA doesn't seem to be worth it at the moment after this article hits the main page. The suggestions issue is terrible also. I can change an article per a suggestion, but then editors can come along and say they don't like what I changed it to. Then I can change that and someone else is unhappy with the new change. At least GA only needs one reviewer. SL93 (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After this fix, I'm now comfortable moving to support, as enough of my concerns have been addressed that I think this is alright for the Main Page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(A bit of a tangent, but I've definitely had an FAC where by the end, most of the reviewers' suggested changes are to things suggested by an earlier reviewer. Take it as a compliment - they can't find anything actually written by you to improve. On the other hand, I have had several cases where I decline to make a change and it keeps getting brought up independently, and once the third person chimes in it's probably me in the wrong and should be changed.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]