Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dan Leonard (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The first sentence is exceptionally clunky. It appears to attempt to shoehorn the article title verbatim as the first words, which while common practice, isn't necessary – see for instance the similar articles aspartame controversy, controversies in autism, or ethics of circumcision.
- The lead as a whole is also not great, as it is essentially a list of the article's headings rather than an overview of the topic as a whole.
- Every subheading under § Claims begins with "some have argued" which – besides being classic unattributed claims – is repetitive when reading.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section):
b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Article uses high-quality sources and is careful to select those that meet WP:MEDRS.
- Slight issue: journal articles are generally only cited by year, while the article uses exact dates. Also, many have the
|url=field filled with the URL that the DOI points to, which exposes the article to link rot and improperly suggests to readers that the articles are open access (journal articles with|doi-access=freewill appear the same as those with|url=). - The article by McNamara, McLamore, Meade, & Olgun (2024) is enough to establish notability for the article topic as a whole and that the article is not original research or synthesis.
- Article has copyvio and must be failed: the section § Responses from medical organizations is almost entirely massive quotations from press releases, and must be trimmed. These quotes are not plagiarism as they are attributed but still copyvio as the quotes are far longer than necessary. The section § Transgender identity as a mental health condition also uses one of the same overly-long quotations, which is a MOS issue as readers will have to reread the same paragraph.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The section § Impact needs significant expansion for this article to claim it actually covers its topic. There is only one sentence stating
It has also led to bomb threats against Boston Children's Hospital
, which does not directly connect how misinformation actually led to a bomb threat. After checking the source, I followed a reference to a paper[1] that described a bomb threat targeted at Boston Children's Hospital based on false beliefs about gender-affirming surgery on children. Not only was this not explained in § Impact, but the instigating false belief (that children were receiving hysterectomies) does not get mention anywhere in the article, let alone under § Claims. If this misinformation is not even in the article, I don't think it's broad enough in its coverage to be a GA. It's surprising that the article Libs of TikTok § Gender-affirming-care-related content provides a much more comprehensive description of these events and the underlying misinformation.
- The section § Impact needs significant expansion for this article to claim it actually covers its topic. There is only one sentence stating
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Focuses entirely on WP:MEDRS sources without providing undue weight to fringe opinions. Would be even better if the lead also included the official positions of medical organizations instead of a list of the organizations that support misinformation.
- Has an Anglo-American bias in its coverage and could use more "in the United States" throughout the article, as anti-transgender misinformation likely manifests differently in different countries.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Article is not illustrated and does not necessarily need illustration. However, I could imagine it improved with a photo of maybe a hospital subject to a bomb threat (as is done at Libs of TikTok § Gender-affirming-care-related content) or a photo of an anti-LGBT protest (as is done at Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric § Homosexuality as sinful or ungodly).
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Copyvio requires that I fail this, although I think the rest of the issues could be resolved with a few days' work. I hope to see this article expanded and resubmitted as a GA.
- Pass/Fail:
References
- ^ Online Harassment, Offline Violence: Unchecked Harassment of Gender-Affirming Care Providers and Children’s Hospitals on Social Media, and its Offline Violent Consequences (PDF) (Report). Human Rights Campaign. 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-21.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.