Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Peer review/2007: Difference between revisions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was petered out. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality

As was agreed on WP:LGBT, I am starting a regular peer review of our monthly collaboration so that editors wishing to contribute can look here for ideas. Thoughts on every aspect of the article so that it may reach FA would be helpful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have glanced at the article and these are some things that stand out to me:

The lead definitely needs expansion, but that should be one of the last things completed so it may summarize the entire article.
The first section of the Description is confusing. There needs to be a description of how the terms "gender" and "sex" are used.
In terminology, it should be determined what terms need be linked and red-links at least stubbed out.
Modern Western prevalence section--should this be expanded to include a "world view"?
Bisexuality in History should cover a world view and carry forward to the modern day. Likely this should be a daughter article that is merely summarized here.
Bisexuality in animals definitely needs expansion.
Bisexuality in modern Western entertainment should be renamed Bisexuality in culture and include a historical worldview. It should probably also be a daughter article that is summarized.
Of course, the entire article should be properly cited. There are some external links spread throughout the article that should be converted to proper footnotes.
The article could use a few more images.

Just a few notes from my perspective. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly this has the typical problems of an article that's been accreted rather than constructed. It rambles in parts and lacks clarity, proportion, and balance. You can see where the people who added each bit of information were coming from, but someone unfamiliar with the topic would probably have a lot of trouble.

Terminology: Might be better as a daughter article; the detail is a little overwhelming so early on. The terms would probably be easier to absorb if they were brought up in context instead of in a separate glossary -- for example, biphobia could be discussed under social status. The acronym MOTSS is too obscure to be helpful in explaining other unfamiliar terms.

The "modern Western prevalence" section rambles around and doesn't adequately clarify how different assumptions lead researchers to different results, though it makes several stabs at it. The paragraph on Freud seems to belong in another section. Lack of citations is particularly problematic in a section supposedly based on quantitative research.

Social status:

Historically, bisexuality has largely been free of the social stigma associated with homosexuality, prevalent even where bisexuality was the norm.

This is a bold claim and needs very solid support. But it's supported by nothing, not even the uncited discussion that follows it, which merely supports a claim that bisexuality has been accepted in men who are upper-class and/or living in Ancient Greece. That is not a majority of the world's population.

Lacking in this section is any sense that people have ever been persecuted for homosexual acts rather than identities and that the question of exclusivity was not necessarily relevant. In fact, for a reader who comes to this without any preexisting knowledge about the subject, the take-home message is that bisexuals have never been subject to any discrimination except by lesbian and gay people. Highly misleading.

On the other hand, there are bisexuals who marry or live with a heterosexual partner because they prefer the complementarity of different genders in cohabiting and co-parenting, but have felt greatly enriched by homosexual relationships alongside the marriage in both monogamous and "open" relationships.

Mentioning "the complementarity of different genders in cohabiting and co-parenting" like this, without any balancing reference to bisexual people whose primary partners are of the same sex, has a strongly heterocentric effect. This is wandering off the point of the section, anyway. The weird use of the word "monogamous" (to mean something like "polyfidelitous"?) makes it extra confusing.

The discussion of symbols comes across as a digression; it could be its own section or subsection, or just be turned into captions. The paragraph criticizing the use of the pink triangle as a symbol is unbalanced POV, and belongs in pink triangle rather than here, anyway.

The history section makes some bold claims without citation. The terms "age-structured" and "gender-structured" need explanation. The caveat about "sexual orientation" being a recent concept would be better at the beginning than the end.

The article might make more sense if history were placed before social status; historical social status could be merged into history to avoid covering the same ground twice.

I don't think the section on animals needs to be much longer, but it would be good to characterize what types of bisexual behavior are most often seen, what biologists think about it, and so on.

What does "Bisexuality (behavioral and biological)" mean? If "biological bisexuality" is being used to refer to hermaphroditism, that's really confusing and unhelpful.

The section about bisexuality in entertainment needs an explanation of what popular culture says about bisexuality and how portrayals have changed over time, although that may be hard to find good sources for. I agree that the long, unilluminating list would be better as a daughter article. —Cel ithemis 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Van de Kamp

Ok, I've been working on this for a while, and now I want to take it to FAC some time soon. I've tried to keep the biography as short as possible, though it proved trying. The characterization and reception sections are the result of my trawling through every single Google search result on Andrew, all 37 pages of it. I would welcome any tips to get it to FA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm "qualified" to review this, but most of this article deals with Andrew's character rather than Andrew himself. What kind of person is he like? What are his other accomplishments beyond Desperate Housewives ? How about his early life? Things like that. - Pandacomics 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Andrew isn't a real person. He doesn't exist outside of desperate housewives... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't suggest anything as it seems ready for FA already. Of course any more info is always welcome. LuciferMorgan 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main picture has been tagged for deletion in a week due to copyright crap. Apart from that, seems like an excellent article, no suggestions here. God he's so hot. :-) Mentality 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Spain

This article is already a GA, and I believe it could be a FA one day. Suggestion to improve it to this end are greatly appreciated. Raystorm 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev920

Good article (well, obviously), here's some stuff I found:

No dictionary knows what "tramitation" means, and I don't know what you meant here.
Your use of references is good, but Residency issues and Marriage numbers could do with a few more. Footnotes should follow directly after a punctuation mark, without a space. You may wish to correct that.
"Canada's federal same-sex marriage legislation passed its final reading in the House of Commons in late June 2005. It received Royal Assent and became law in late July 2005." Is this sentence necessary? Can it be cut down?
In the history section, it says the bill was rejected because the "opposition People's party" held a plurality of seats. Was this because they were simply being contrary, or are they opposed to gay marriage anyway?
"Prominent People's Party members later rejected these afirmations by Polaino (who was later found to believe in exorcisms)." The exorcisms clause I think is slight POV.
"Children born within a lesbian marriage (from whatever means)" What does this bracketed clause mean, or add to the sentence?
"Catholics in particular were adamantly opposed to it." Well, that's not true, if 76% of Spaniards are Catholic, but 66% supported gay marriage. Can you clarify this sentence?
All dates (January 21, 2007) need to be wikilinked, per WP:DATE. It is somewhat sporadic throughout the article.
You need to reference the entire last paragraph of Reactions, or it seems like OR.

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll add to it if I find anything. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article!

Sorry. Seems my Legal English isn't as fantastic as I thought. How do you call the process a law must undergo to finally become a law?

ratification (I am starting my own peer review now). Jeffpw 13:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the marriage numbers, we tried to provide the estimations from a conservative source (La Razon), the LGTB Spanish organization and a Government officer. What other references should be added? I'll try to see what I can find for the Residency section.

The sentence about Canada is because there was some confusion about which country had become the third to allow gay marriage. In fact, some news sources list Spain as being the 4th country to allow it, instead of the third. I'll try to cut it down, but I think it's important to keep.

Ahhh, that's the mistery about the PP! In the previous 8 years, while they governed, they took no steps to provide equal rights to gays. In fact, they shot down several propositions from the opposition. They argue that if they had won the elections they would have regulated by law gay unions, but we will never know will we? They have gone to demonstrations against gay marriage, saying their problem is the use of the word 'marriage', not gay people per se. So you could say they opposed gay marriage at the Senate because they were both being contrary (they've seldom agreed with the Government in anything) and because they did not support gay marriage.

*Grin* Okay, the exorcism sentence might be slightly POV. I think I added it to provide a counter balance to Polaino's previous statements. I figured it'd be 'informative' to let people know that the guy who said such things about gays had also written articles based on religious beliefs as opposed to hard science (that would be relevant explaining his gay statements, don't you think?). An article is provided as a ref too, so it isn't just hearsay. But if it is a big problem it can be removed or reworded.

The lesbian marriage sentence. Well, I also don't like it too much. The 'from whatever means' refers to the several possibilities (in vitro, male friend) a lesbian could get pregnant. It makes no difference the way a lesbian gets pregnant. It's not a strong sentence, I'll see if I can reword it.

Well, the problem is the definition of Catholic. Most Spaniards are Catholic because they were baptised at birth, and that fact is recorded and cannot be changed even if the person later rejects the Catholic creed. As baptism is a tradition in Spain, most Spaniards are Catholic. I could say 'Catholic authorities' to prevent confusion.

I thought the dates were okay? Well, I'll change them then.

You mean the paragraph about gay adoption being legal in several Spanish cities? Alright. I'll see if I can make some sort of wiki link to the Gay Rights in Spain article.

Thanks again Dev920! :) I'll try to make the changes asap. Cheers! Raystorm 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article does have a good shot at FA, but you must get a good copyeditor to go through it first. There are some prose issues that I cannot help you with. I've fixed some rogue footnotes, so do be careful about this with your next article. Otherwise, I cannot think of anything else to say about this article. Well done! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already requested a copyeditor to go through it. :) Thanks! Raystorm 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Does this mean it might now rate A-class at the Wikiproject? ;P Raystorm 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffpw's review

lead: first sentence: it is IN not ACROSS. Why is Spain bolded?

Double use of officially is jarring

rather high:--seems weaselly to me. Can you provide actual figures?

Ditto for the sentence about Catholics; you should also modify this per Dev's comment.

decided to challenge. Did they challenge or not? Simply saying challenged is less ambiguous.

delete and only if from sentence about foreigners marrying (it's redundant)

History: some local benefits--this is not precise; what do you mean???

breakup is a colloquialism; if the relationship ended might be a better term.

about marriage is rather clunky. Consider changing to in matters relating to marriage.

Check the entire article for use of passive voice. I thought I noticed it a few times in the article.

the day of his inauguration. Changing to AT his inauguration will read better.

only wikify dates if year is also included, per WP:MOS

Remove Canada sentence, per Dev--it's just unnecessary.

Complete tramitation of Law 13/2005-- Tramitation is actually ratification. Also, what does 13/2005 mean??? is that a date?

critic about--you mean critcal of

It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?

previsions:Do you mean provisions? I would suggest deleting that clause, as it does not add to sentence.

no effect in a childs' development--ON a child's.

affirmations. I think you mean assertions.

(with the girls): change to regarding girls; same with the part about boys.

exorcisms per Dev (but I like it!).

uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.

The uplifting of the veto supposed its definite approval as law. Ditto.

sanctioned could better be written as endorsed.

True enough, the king of Spain would later proceed to give his Royal Assent to the law. Remove true enough. It's just plain awkward.

Residency issues: consulate marriages: Add consuls in S Africa--same-sem marriage is now legal there.

Belgium and Netherlands only marries residents--cite please. Also, wikilink to relevant articles about sema-sex marriage in the countries, not the countries themselves.

marriage numbers--more cites needed for first paragraph

divorces consummated: granted might be a more regular word choice.

Two weeks after this rally, and coinciding with the Gay Pride Day, 2.0 million people marched in favour of the new law for gays and lesbians, organizers claimed (official sources accounted 97,000). This is an odd sentence construction. Insert the final clause at the beginning of sentence.

matrimonio Is there some reason you wish to use this word, and then define it? Youcan also just say matrimony.

bringing up is an idiomatic phrase--raising is a better word choice.

There is a tense problem in reactions--you slip back and forth between past and present tense. Please adjust this accordingly.

All in all, this is an excellent article. I suggest you submit it to the League of copyeditors for a thorough edit, since English is your second language. After they have vetted it, please submit it for Good Article status. I would happily support its becoming a GA.

Err, it's already a GA. :) Law 13/2005 is the official name of the law. Spain is bolded because the articles' name is same-sex marriage in Spain (besides, followed Same-sex marriage in Canada lead for this per request of GA reviewer, check talk page). The 'rather high' comment is properly referenced at the reactions section, do I reference it again at the lead? I was just summarizing some sections' contents at the lead.

It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?

Well, it means that marriage wasn't necessary per se. Discrimination could be avoided by some kind of civil union regulation instead. I'll try to find a less confusing way to express this.

uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.

It means they took away the veto, it stopped having effect. I use British English, and I'm starting to realise some words are different from American English. (Just FYI, English is not my second language -I simply wasn't the only editor writing the article!). :)

AHA! In Americanspeak, that's "Override". Thanks for clarifying it for me. I hadn't heard the British term.

The marriage numbers. An online reference isn't provided, true, but the newspaper and agency that did these estimations are mentioned both by name and date. I thought that was valid?

I'll proceed with all the other changes asap (It's gonna be fun trying to find out if there's a Spanish Consulate in South Africa...). Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article! Cheers Raystorm, 21 January 2006, 17:25 UTC

Oops! I just went to the peer review from the LGBT page, so didn't look at the talk page tag, and only skimmed the rest of the stuff on this page. My apologies for not seeing that. Also, in rereading my review, I realize I may have come across as a pedantic dickhead, which was cewrtainly not my intention. I am doing 8 things at once, and was typing quickly (and a bit tersely, in retrospect). After you implement the suggested changes, consider submitting it for Featured status. At the very worst, you'll get more valuable feedback; and I think it has a very good shot at FA. Cheers, Jeffpw 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all mate, I honestly appreciate the feedback. Seeing lots of emoticons might make for a pleasant review, true, but it certainly isn't required. :) I'd rather have some good FB thrown back at me instead. Plus I understand all about time constraints, believe me. I'm glad you were able to drop your two cents in making this (hopefully) a FA one day. Cheers! Raystorm 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): weren't, don't, didn't, isn't.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Blink* Except for the image on the top right corner thing, I think everything else is covered. Raystorm 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a legislation infobox and juggled the images in the article a bit. How does it look now? Should I take it off or leave it? Raystorm 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Obviously I'm not asking the bot, but other humans. ;) Raystorm 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can add one more image to the top, or move one of the lower images? It looks a little stark, with the new infobox added. Jeffpw 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, doesn't it? Let's see what I can do about it... Raystorm 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? :) Raystorm 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much! I know it seems strange, that the Spain box should be lower than the LGBT box, but the LGBT one is just so much more colorful. Visual appeal is a factor...to me, anyway. Call it the Queer Eye. :-) Jeffpw 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I wasn't liking too much the outcome either after I added the Spain infobox, but figured it was a necessary addition. It does look better now. We are all visual animals anyway. :) Raystorm 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Blade

So I've dumped a ton of effort into this to raise it from Stub to B, then per Dev920's comments on the talk page, I expanded it more to make it better situated for nomination for GA (and eventually FA). Now it's time for someone else's eyeballs to look at it. I think my citations might be off in a couple of places so any help to fix those would be great! Thanks!! jtowns 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page Hmm. This article does not appear to be the article I thought I looked at. :) But, if you're still interested in GA -

The lead needs to sum up the entire article. Ideally, it needs to be able to stand alone.
The references are not formatted properly, see WP:CITE for more.
How is the paper laid out? Formatted?
Tell me more about Bladewire. Who came up with it? What's its circulation?
Some questions: Has there been any controversies surrounding it? Has it ever won awards? What's the readership demographics? What's the editorial line? Any good scoops? Any competition?

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll review later. This is important what you're doing, btw, no LGBT newspaper has made it beyond a stub yet. If you can get this up to FA, we'll have a precedant to work from. Good luck! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is starting to shape up nicely, though I'm worried about the proliferation of short sections. Anyway, here's an FA newspaper that I found that you may find helpful: The Philadelphia Inquirer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the lead needs work but you can go for GA after that, I think. Even if there's other stuff they want they'll put it on hold for you to fix. I'd just like to say, well done, this article has been so improved. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dev, I'm concerned with the number of short sections. Here's some other things I've noticed:

Things look well-cited, which I like to see (I haven't verified any of them, but I don't see large chunks of text that are not cited).
"1969 to June 1974: The Gay Blade's Early Years" and "1950s to 1969: The Origins" could be combined.
Actually, all the history subsections seems somewhat arbitrary broken up.. The names don't seem terribly interesting, and don't really give me an idea what the section is really about. The names don't seem to be very encyclopedic.
The AIDS crisis was a big part of LGBT history. Is there any more information to how the paper responded to the crisis?
The reporting on AIDS is called "ground-breaking" in the article. This doesn't seem to be neutral point of view. Instead, give some examples on how it was ground-breaking and quote others who said it was ground-breaking.
Section titles do not follow the Manual of Style.
The history sections frequently reads as if each sentence is a bulleted list without the bullets.
It makes sense to move the BladeWire section as a subsection of "About".
The section name "About" should be something more informative.
Are Metro Weekly and The Advocate really competitors? Or are they just LGBT publications like the Washington Blade? Are they notable enough as competitors to be listed here? (Would we consider Gayly Oklahoman a competitor?) I think this section could be expanded or perhaps removed altogether.
The article should be named Washington Blade not The Washington Blade. (see WP:Manual of Style).
"Criticism & Controversy" section could work as its own section instead of being a subsection of History.
The "Archives" and "Awards" don't really belong as subsections of History.
One source with one person blogging and calling Washington Blade a "newspaper of record" does not mean we can say "The newspaper is sometimes referred to as America's gay newspaper of record". -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlux -- So I have eliminated many of the short sections, tightened up the history subsections, rearranged things as a suggested above. As for the 'About' section -- I'm not sure what better to call it. I used "General overview" which is used on The Washington Post. I also added more to the criticism and controversy section to make it able to stand on its own, and I have added another source for the newspaper of record comment. As for the AIDS crisis reporting, I removed the NPOV violated text, but I have been unable to locate additional sources to say it was ground-breaking coverage. On the point about competition, MetroWeekly is a direct competitor in the LGBT publication market in Washington DC. They compete directly for ad dollars and readers. And the only other GLBT newspaper i nthe US that has similar resources and reporting quality is the Bay Area Reporter out of SF. So they don't directly compete, but the Reporter and the Blade are competitors. I look forward to more feedback as it comes and more suggestions as you have them. Thanks! jtowns 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing -- I'm having a hard time coming up with sources for awards the paper has won. Any suggestions? I called the paper today and they just told me that they have won numerous awards but didn't have a list of them to give me for more info... jtowns 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok based upon this feedback and stuff on the talk page, I made changes and am now submitting this article for GA nomination. Therefore I am de-listing this as peer review. jtowns 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trembling before G-d

Originally starting improving this to win my head to head at the LGBT WikiProject's Jumpaclass, but now I figure it might be cool to make it FA. What do I need to do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 'Awards' section could be turned into prose, instead of its current table format. LuciferMorgan 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If possible, I'd like a little more info on the subjects of the film itself, and some background on different views vs. gay men and gay women. One thing that struck me when I saw it was that none of the women showed their faces or let themselves be identified. I think that should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Kolindigo 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Dev, you've done a good job on this article. Congrats and keep it up! :-)

The lead-in could use some work in:
- It should summarize the entire article. If the rest of the article was removed, it should be able to stand on its own as an article.
- It needs its sources cited like the rest of the article.
- [the film] did reasonably at the box office, using dollar amounts would be better here. Let the reader decide how good or bad it did. It did reasonably at the box office compared to what? Did it do reasonably well for a gay movie? For a Jewish movie?
- The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they went about their lives and interviewed both rabbis and psychotherapists about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality. Because of these attitudes, while DuBowski met hundreds of homosexual Jews over six years, only a handful agreed to be filmed. What was their attitudes? Where they embarrassed about their beliefs? Is that what DuBowski theorized the reason they did not want to be interviewed?
A section on homosexuality and Orthodox Judaism would be helpful for the reader to understand the movie's subject matter.
I would like to see more criticism and praise for the movie.
Has the movie actually made an impact on the Jewish and gay communities?
There is also a mini-documentary about reactions to the film around the world and what happened to the people who were featured in the documentary. Maybe we could talk briefly about this documentary as well? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things:

Turn "Awards" section into a list instead of a table (I like how Brokeback_Mountain#Awards does it).
The awards need to be cited. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The awards section in brokeback mountain looks horribly untidy. I prefer the other one. Anyway, I checked out the stuff you mentioned in the lead, and haven't done anything where the information you asked for may be found in the body of the article, but added everything else. A section on background has been added for homosexuality and Judaism. I will add more criticism as I find it as you have suggested, but hasn't the impact on the jewish and gay communities been described in the Reception section? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev, you've done a great job with this article -- I'm going to have to add it to my Netflix queue now :) The background section was a very good touch, nice job. You're right on the awards section. The awards section just looked funny because my screen because my screen is quite large and it took up 30% or so of the width. From Wikipedia:Lead section: "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "[the lead] should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I understand this to mean we should add sources in the lead-in regardless if it is sourced in the other sections. It makes sense to me anyhow, the reader's shouldn't have to skim the article to find the appropriate citation. I would still like to know what "the film did reasonably well at the box office" means. Are we talking millions here? Putting something like "the film did reasonably well at the box office grossing n dollars" would do just fine. The article needs someone to go through who is pretty good at fixing up grammar, etc. I'm not very good at it, but I'll go over it tomorrow with that in mind. Again, nice work! -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations to the lead, and the amount grossed. And if you want to see Trembling, you definitely want to see Latter Days. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the lead a bit of a rewrite, attempting to summarize the article a little better and more fully. No doubt I've made some mistakes, so feel free to fix things up or tell me. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So, any extra points, or shall I move on to FA? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you liked it, you didn't change much *cheers* :-) The style section bothers me, it is a bit short. Would it make sense to make it a subsection to Production or Synopsis sections? Or just expand it? In any case, I think we could give WP:GA another shot first. I believe the concerns from the first GA have been resolved. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked WJB to look at it again. Tbh, I usually bypass GA. If you've put in enough work to make it GA, you may as well put in that little bit more to make it FA. The style section was put in because the previous GA nom complained that it didn;t fit anywhere else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Dev! Just a few quibbles before this goes to FAC:

There are a handful of one sentence paragraphs. This will come up in FAC, so either merge the sentences with a surrounding paragraph or expand them.
The See Also section is pointless as everything ,except for Keep Not Silent, is already linked within the article. I think Keep Not can be worked in somewhere in the article.
Check to make sure that links are only linked once within the article. Stephen Greenberg is linked thrice. Also, check each link and make sure they link to the proper article and not disambig pages.
Stephen Greenberg is described as "the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi" twice.
There is a lack of images...other than the DVD cover, there isn't anything else. The image of DuBowski has a fair-use rationale for use in this article, yet it is not there. It should be included. Perhaps find a screenshot from one of the interviews in profile as well? Maybe an image of Greenberg?
I like the table for the awards!

This is a fine article and you'll do well on FAC, methinks! Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had images of both but neither WJB nor Angr would let me use them, apparently it's not fair use to just show living people. The links and gay rabbiness have been dealt with. The see also section is always something I personally like to see, even when the links are above, so I want to leave that there. And if you think it's okay to have a fair shot at FA, I'll go do it then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Panic!

As the major contributor to this article, I want it to be the best it can be. It recently passed Good Article status, and I want to see if the article can be improved to Featured Article status, or at least A class before it can become an FA. Any comments on how to improve the article any more are welcome. --十八 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other articles do you have that are about SP!? It's a bit hard to navigate between all of them atm, I think. WP:ANIME can give an A-class assessment for SP!. -Malkinann 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category: Strawberry Panic! which can facilitate the navigation, but other than that, there are these articles: List of Strawberry Panic! characters, List of Strawberry Panic! episodes, List of Strawberry Panic! albums, and Strawberry Panic! (short stories). I considered making a template, but there doesn't seem to be enough pages for that purpose.--十八 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there are plenty of articles to make a template, but I do not think it is necessary. Each of those articles are referenced within Strawberry Panic! using the main article template. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some of the lead into a history section. I think that the lead had already summarised the different media that SP has well enough and repeating it in detail required a new section. Parts of the writing reads more like a narrative or is review-like, such as Perhaps the main plot decive in the series revolves around the Etoile election. Why not just come out and say The main plot device is the Etoile election. Suggestive writing isn't encyclopedic. Other examples are The students may go and Their tasks generally consist of. Sentences that suggest that something may happen should be reworded to something more definite.

Some sentences like who attend this school should really be who attend the school or who attend St. Spica as I don't believe that relative clauses should be able to backwardly refer to the title of a section. St. Spica had not been mentioned in the text prior to referring to this. I don't know how strict FA writing should be, but any relative clauses in separate sentences is poor structure in my view. A sentence by itself should make sense and a sentence like Depending on the media type, the way in how this is featured varies.... does not. A reader has to read it in context for it to make sense. This is only my view and I'm by no means an expert so I have left the sentences alone. --Squilibob 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you expand the lead to comply with WP:LEAD. Articles of this size should at least have a 3 paragraph lead. Tarret 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead incorperated the History section just yesterday, and right now the lead cannot be expanded without inclusion of the information in history; seeing how we can't have it both ways (3/4 paragraph lead with history section), I'm going to movie History into the lead again.--十八 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Work has been ongoing to clear up this list, or lists, since October 2006. It has been converted to tables, vastly expanded, given a decent lead, see also section and images of people entered down one side. We are still working on formatting the references for entries and ensuring the sources are reliable, and are working to update the list with those who are elegible (please help!), so please ignore those issues. However, this is simple grunt work, and an FLC seems a real possibility sometime in the next few months. Advice on how to get there would be appreciated, particularly regarding what should be on the main page, it seems kinda empty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 14 or 15 in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/U-Z has messed with all the references. M3tal H3ad 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images need to be looked at and possibly redone. As examples, Guy Burgess is unsourced. Alan Turing is copyrighted (there's not nearly enough critical commentary to be able to justify fair use her). Rupert Everett gives no indication that the image is actually free and doesn't state who the copyright holder is. Also, lots of the references need to be improved. For examples, Mark Levengood is cited to another Wikipedia. Steve Kmetko has a link titled "www.findarticles.com". No article title, no name of the original publisher, no author, no original publishing date, no date of retrieval. ShadowHalo 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did say in my original message that the references were an ongoing thing. I didn't know about the images though, I will go have them sorted out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am responsible for adding the images. A few images have been added after me. I did check the images before I added them and I will check them again. I did see a list recently where the images were smaller (see List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry) and I really think it looks better. Perhaps a change might be in order with size as well? I'll be looking at the images ASAP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a number of images. Tomorrow I will go in and see if I can find some free images to add, so the articles don't look so bare. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gateways club

I have added a lot of infomation to this article, including finding some pictures. It's a challenge to write as the club is a very passionate item amongst the older lesbians in the UK. I would like to see it elevated from a Stub. Fluffball70 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cites come after a full stop and not before. Also try reviewing Wikipedia:Citation templates which'll help as concerns suggested citation styles. When citing from a book, it's best to quote the specific page number for each citation. LuciferMorgan 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused? There is completed citation template for the book that was used. I'm not sure how you would do the page numbers? Except be doing each point as a complete new reference entry? Do I need to reference every single line? Fluffball70 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you would do each point as a new entry, like; Surname (Publication date of book), p. number

The Iron Maiden (band) article does this. You would then add the book name to a References section. The section you've named References should be called Notes. LuciferMorgan 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Rivera

I have been attempting to source a lot of unsourced statements and information in the Miriam Rivera article, including:

birthdate
place of birth
aliases
work in pornography
claims about a recent hospitalization

I have also been trying to limit the citations to reliable published sources. Many exist from 2004, when the subject was in the public eye. However, other sources, including a message board and blog for sex workers and people attracted to them keeps getting inserted as a reliable source. I'm seeking outside opinions regarding the quality of sources after a lot of back and forth with an editor who insists WP:IAR trumps all policy regarding sourcing and reliability. Jokestress 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

I have expressed my opinion in the article's talk page, and my reservations towards blogs. I am happy to see that the situation is calmer now there. Now, I understand the difficulty to source the information the article needs, but I don't think I can offer any original ideas. The article, as it stands now, is a start-class article; with some work and expansion it could get B.--Yannismarou 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hfarmer

I personally have not inserted anything into that article in quite a while. Look at the history of the article. I give Jokestress credit for writing a good article and urger her not to remove anything more. I also understand that their are some valid WP policy reasons for being cautious about the sources.. To be honest it seems as if Jokestress has problems with using hungangels as a source. As she said "However, other sources, including a message board and blog for sex workers and people attracted to them keeps getting inserted as a reliable source.(Jokestress)" So if it were a newspaper ran by and for transsexuals who are in adult entertainment would she still mention the fact that they are in adult entertainment? Why does that matter to her? Certainly people in adult entertainment would know who was who in those video's and pictures, Right?

I would rate the current article highly thanks mostly to Jokestress. However, I mean If it does not mention the following well known facts.

aliases -- a common practice among the population of which she is a part.
work in pornography -- A well known and undisputed fact, reportedly admitted to by her on There's Something About Miriam
Facts about a recent violent attack and hospitalization -- will have to be added eventually.

Without those this will be a very incomplete biography. --Hfarmer 16:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harisu

I'm looking for some general feedback on this article following my recent efforts to get it up to GA standards. I don't think there's a great deal I can add to it in terms of content, but I'd like to get any potential issues resolved before I list it at WP:GAC. Thanks in advance! PC78 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It surpasses GA standard and should be submitted to GAC right now. LuciferMorgan 22:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If I may be so bold, what would it need to get it up to FA class? PC78 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting it and addressing other editors concerns? If you have the time to address any concerns FAC reviewers may give, then it'll pass FAC likely. Depends on whether you have the time to address any concerns (should they be forthcoming). LuciferMorgan 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. But I meant if the article was lacking in any way that might prevent it getting FA status? Still, I'm not too worried about that now. I'd rather get it through GA review first. PC78 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can pick out. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "By the end of 2001, Harisu had published her autobiography, Eve from Adam" - Did it enter any book charts in the continent she is from? Are there any critical reviews available you can use as feedback it has received? LuciferMorgan 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, and no. All I have for that are a couple of vague comments, one that says it wasn't a bestseller, and one that says it was. Not much I can do with that! PC78 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any feedback on her albums then that can be added? LuciferMorgan 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, only the chart positions and sales figures mentioned in the discography section. Might be as well to work those into the main text, I suppose. PC78 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to do so. The only thing holding the article back at present is the amount of available info. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tweaked the text a bit so that it now mentions the chart positions (or lack of) for each of her albums, but not the sales figures, since they're pretty meaningless without any frame of reference. I've also added a short paragraph to the discography section which mentions her musical influences, mainly because I couldn't find anywhere else to put it. PC78 19:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm a Cheerleader

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/But I'm a Cheerleader/archive1

This article became a Good Article a little while ago. I'd really like to know what needs to be done to get it to FA standard. Thanks, --Beloved freak 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off biting the bullet and nominating it for FAC. If you're willing to address whatever minor concerns they may have, it should pass. LuciferMorgan 22:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I may well do that at some point, but before I do I would really appreciate some feedback with regards to the prose and whether or not I need help with copyediting. --Beloved Freak 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]