# Talk:The Other Side of Aspen

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Other Side of Aspen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Hi, just wanted to inquire about the status of this review. Morgan695 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I'm not all that knowledgeable of the subject matter, so it took me a bit longer to give it a proper look-over.
Overall, I think the article is pretty solid for a start, but I think there are some remaining issues before it can meet GA criteria

My main concern is comprehensiveness (crit. 3.) The article doesn't need to be an exhaustive summation of the topic, but given its very short length, I think more needs to be done here. In particular, if the film is as influential as described, it really ought to delve into that.
On looking through Google Books and Google Scholar, I found some additional possible sources that discuss the film:
One-Handed Histories: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography (John R Burger, Routledge, 2020)
Could not access, but from Google Books preview it looks like it contained only fleeting references to the film.
Actually, I found the reference in Gay Pornography: Representations of Sexuality and Masculinity and cited it accordingly.
Porno Chic and the Sex Wars: American Sexual Representation in the 1970s (University of Massachusetts Press, 2016)
Did not contain any references to the film.
You use Sexualities, Spaces and Leisure Studies (Routledge, 2013), but there's some context in it which seems to tie into some periodical/scholarly coverage of resorts, etc. as gay safe space, from some of the other sources.
Added a bit more about the aesthetics of wealth from that article.
HIV in World Cultures: Three Decades of Representations (2016)
I'm a bit torn on this one, since the primary discussion of film in this article is a brief reference to a novel in which writer Alistair McCartney (who does not appear to be an especially notable author) compares The Other Side of Aspen to The Masque of the Red Death by Edgar Allan Poe. Which is interesting, I guess, but I'm not sure whether it actually contributes to a reader's understanding of the film, or is even notable analysis in its own regard.
Gay Pornography: Representations of Sexuality and Masculinity (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017)
Expanded article with content from this source.
Journal content:
You use content from Out, Volume 10, Issues 7-12 for a reference to a sequel, but don't mention the coverage of how the look was designed to specifically eschew convention, and there's potentially more detail I can't see from snippet view.
Done.
"In the Slammer; The Myth of the Prison in American Gay Pornographic Video", Journal of Homosexuality, https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v47n03_08
Contains only a fleeting reference to how the film sells a luxury fantasy that is more effectively made by the Johnston article.
" ‘Doing’ and ‘Using’ Sexual Orientation: The Role of Gay Male Pornographic Film in the Identity Construction of Gay Men", South African Review of Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2013.817048
Similarly only contains a fleeting reference.
"Sanitizing the Seventies: Pornography, Home Video, and the Editing of Sexual Memory", https://doi.org/10.1525/fmh.2019.5.2.19
Expanded the article with material from this source.
Brief mention in Virtual Intimacies (State University of New York Press, 2013) about Aspen and its relation to the work of amateur porn being produced in the modern era.
Used to expand "Reception and legacy" section.
This was all stuff I found through an hour or two yesterday, and I'm not versed in any more LGBT issues-focused academic content that might be worth trawling through.
Regarding sourcing, it would be best if the primary sources used for the sequels were replaced by secondary sources.
Done. Probably just barely passes WP:RS, but alas.
On the subject of utilizing existing sources more, I wonder if there's more to be gleaned from Bigger Than Life? For example:
In fall 1977, Falcon Studios cameraman Colin Meyer suggested to the studio's founder Chuck Holmes that Falcon produce a film that featured the most famous performers from the three "generations" of gay adult film actors:[3] Casey Donovan, the star of Boys in the Sand and the first ever gay porn star; Al Parker, a popular Colt Studios model who had appeared in several Falcon films; and the up-and-coming Dick Fisk.[3][4]—I'm left wondering exactly when these films came out, and how the "generations" are determined. A little more elaboration is helpful if someone's not very familiar with the genre.
I sourced Bigger Than Life fairly extensively already, but I clarified the section you've excerpted.
You mention the Golden Age of Porn in the lead, but not in the body of the article; that kind of relevance should definitely be directly mentioned.
This whole part felt MOS:WEASEL so I re-wrote it with material cited in the article body.
Images: I don't think File:The Other Side of Aspen.png has a very good fair use rationale per WP:NFCC; besides just not really having one, the title card seems like it's pretty irrelevant and when removed doesn't significantly impact understanding of the topic. Something like collateral, posters, even those mail orders would have more critical discussion to back it up.
I've expanded the rationale. I do believe that the title card does meaningfully contribute to the article and understanding of the subject material; the novelty typeface, desaturated image, and depiction of Aspen are evocative of the 1970s "porn aesthetic" that The Other Side of Aspen helped define. I do not believe a film poster actually exists; the closest equivalent would be the 2014 DVD cover, which I don't think as effectively communicates the "period" nature of the film.
That kind of representation of the porn aesthetic would be a solid fair use rationale, but you have to actually prove it. Do you have sources commenting on that aspect? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I'm not certain how I could "prove" that. There are sources within the article discussing the film's production values, but NFCC evaluation is by its nature a subjective assessment; in the absence of a film poster, I would argue that a film title card is self-evidently relevant and qualifies as fair use. Also worth noting that Template:Infobox film only states that the image should be "a relevant image for the film" and does not necessarily have to be a poster.
I've reached out to Wikiproject Film for additional guidance, as this is not my area of expertise. Morgan695 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: It appears that film titles are not categorically forbidden for use in Template:Infobox film, so long as a proper rationale is provided. Per the rationale in the image file, any other image that shows the same artwork or otherwise communicates the branding of the film (collateral, posters) would also be copyrighted, so a discussion of title card vs. other material feels a bit like splitting hairs. If you still do not believe the title card meets NFCC, we may be at an impasse. Morgan695 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
My main point is that NFCC is deliberately a strict set of criteria that seek to use as minimal an amount of copyrighted work as possible. The consideration is not just whether having an image is helpful to an article, but whether removing it is detrimental. Consensus is generally that for films the poster art or block is acceptable in an infobox for purposes of identification; that kind of rationale (which I think is kind of weaksauce, but is neither here nor there) doesn't really fit with a random title card, since you could essentially make your own free alternative of the text (it's bog-standard Cooper Black) and not lose anything (slap an alpine scene behind it too.) Why I asked for sources about adhering to a porn chic is because that's the kind of justification we usually need for fair-use content in articles; if you're writing an article about a film and include a screenshot you need to justify its inclusion because it's discussed in the production as a specifically hard shot, or it was the subject of critical commentary, or it ties into scholarly analysis of its themes, et cetera. For a similar example, Oxenfree uses File:Oxenfree.svg instead of a non-free game poster since its logo is simple enough to meet public domain thresholds. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I have expanded the rationale to note that the title card provides critical commentary by depicting Aspen, which the plot of film was developed around (per Escoffier) and that it communicates the "aesthetic and the natural quality" of the original film (per Ward via Falcon Studios) in a manner that contemporary re-issued DVD cover art does not. Morgan695 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not really sure the rewritten fair use rationale meets NFCC#8 requirements, but it at least is much more strongly argued than it was so I'm withdrawing my complaint. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll review these edits and ping you when I've implemented them. Morgan695 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Response to edits are above. Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Overall the article is looking much stronger. I made a few changes, and have one or two minor queries remaining:
Donovan and Parker met for the first time while flying Lake Tahoe to shoot the film,[13] while Fisk and Benson pursued a romantic relationship after filming concluded.—I'm not entirely sure where the connection is for the "while" splicing of these two clauses. Did Donavan and Parker have a romantic relationship too?
Rearranged section.
A critical and commercial success upon its release, The Other Side of Aspen has been described as the greatest gay pornographic film of all time.—Given the sweeping nature of this claim and the fact that only one publication quoted has said as much, I think it should be specifically attributed to LTA.
Done.
The corresponding mention of this in the body feels like it's in a weird place, since it's sandwiched in between commercial reception where it feels like it belongs in the "impact"/legacy post-release section.
I tried moving it per your suggestion but it feels awkward in the impact section; I think it makes more sense to include it in the discussion of its critical reception.
Is the ref in the cast section supposed to reference just that person it's attached to, or the entire section? If the latter, it needs to be presented in another fashion to be clear.
Clarified.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Response above.
Ok. I'll take a final look at the article today and pass if there are no further issues that come to my attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)