Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:LGBT/P" redirects here. For the task force, see Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Task forces/Person.
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
Members
Coordinator
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

The LGBT WikiProject peer reviews articles on request. This is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement. It is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate - however, the process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality though requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive as there is little for readers to comment on. This process is not an academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

Many articles which are supported by the LGBT Wikiproject are also within the scope of other WikiProjects, many of which have peer reviews departments are well. The peer review chosen is entirely at the discretion of the editor concerned.

Active Peer reviewers[edit]

If you are having trouble getting reviews, please contact any of the editors below and they will be happy to help you if they can.

  1. Ashlux (talk · contribs)
  2. Raystorm (talk · contribs)

Instructions[edit]

Requesting a review[edit]

  1. Add |peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page.
  2. From there, click on the word "currently" that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article, whether you're interested in a general review or are intending to nominate for GA/FA, and then sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article has already had a peer review:

  1. Move the existing subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above using the redirect left behind.
  3. Be sure to provide a link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Previously peer reviewed here.").

Reviewing[edit]

Everyone, not just WikiProject members, is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments. This helps to organise responses.

Archiving[edit]

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a Good Article or a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace |peer-review=yes with |old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

Requests[edit]

Utrecht sodomy trials[edit]

I just translated this from nl: (partly written by me as well), then extended it using sources cited at es:, so it probably contains some Dutchisms. I'm not an expert in LGBT history. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Stuart Milk[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a COI and am trying to help address promotional concerns about its contents in a fair way. Assistance on improving tone of article to better comply with bio policies would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher[edit]

This article has been contentious since 2007 and is currently the sum of its content wars. It needs a proper editorial and authorial approach. NetNus (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Gay Women's Alternative[edit]

Hello, I created the Gay Women's Alternative article this past week while doing archival research on the roots of lesbian community development in DC. I was surprised that an article had not been created about a very important organization that existed between 1980 and 1993 in DC. I am interested in a general review of the article and would love for other contributors to add their knowledge to it! Most of my resources/citations are coming from the online archive provided by The Rainbow History Project and the GWA print archives only available at the Historical Society of Washington, DC at the Kiplinger Library. I would love for feedback and additional edits if you know more about the organization! Thanks. Kelsey Brannan (talk)

User:Stephenjamesx/Lady Gaga as gay icon[edit]

Lady Gaga is increasingly and undeniably becoming the gay icon - I think it's obvious that she really cares for the LGBT community - and at the heart, is a girl evidently who wants social justice. As a gay guy, Gaga is my icon. A lot of my gay friends, men and women, are fans and consider her iconic. It's not just the gay community she cares for - most "gay icons" only consider the G of LGBT - Gaga, however, recognises that LGBT individuals are part of a community, not just a fan base. I created this article as a proud gay fan and as an avid follower of Gaga. I plan, sometime in the near future, to have this article in the main space at Lady Gaga as gay icon, but for now, I'm trying to get it to as high of a standard as I can before its potential public debut. I would love it if you found it suitable to give it a read and review. Highlight some positives/negatives maybe? Thank you in advance. xo - Stephenjamesx (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion. Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at WP:Featured list candidates — but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Provided notices to WikiProject talkpages, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional problems[edit]

Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,

I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to strongly agree. Wikipedia is not a platform for Dan Savage fanwankery, and has been abused as such for several years now, to much and repeated controversy (e.g., multiple, rancorous and inconclusive AfDs of Santorum (neologism)). Enough is enough. The very existence of this page is silly, and the fact that it's more detail-wallowing by about an order of magnitude than Mark Twain bibliography is strong evidence that it's non-encyclopedic crap. NB: I actually read Savage here and there and find him usually very amusing, frequently insightful, and rarely wrongheaded, so I'm not coming at this from an "Anti-DS" viewpoint. I'm simply against using WP as a fan page. This is not Geocities or MySpace. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

List of anti-LGBT people[edit]

I'm a student of gender & sexuality history. I was frustrated that it was easy to find specific people who have identified as homosexual/LGBT on Wikipedia, but that only paints one side of the picture. I started developing this list as a beginning resource for people to trace the currents that have defamed, undermined, and demonized gay/homosexual/queer culture from a broad historical perspective. The list seems like it will grow too long to be contained within the page on Homophobia.

Another writer noted that the title of the list can seem anachronistic since the term LGBT didn't exist for most of history, and might also not be accurate since people on the list may not have specifically identified themselves as anti-gay/homosexual/queer even though they enacted or promoted prejudices against gay people/homosexuals/queers. That writer suggested a title something like "Historical figures who have persecuted homosexuals". That seems to work for me, although the extent of what constitutes "persecution" might be open to interpretation. While St. Augustine describing homosexuality as a dreadful sin, for instance, doesn't seem like outright persecution, it certainly was influential in setting up a longstanding system of persecution. Maybe "List of Prominent Figures in the History of Homophobia"? I'd like more input from others, so I'm requesting this peer review to help with a more accurate title. Markwiki (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would need to be a lot more specific, establishing clear inclusion criteria, and probably in more than one article. I would propose at least two "List of advocates of the criminalization of homosexuality" and "List of opponents to gay marriage". Not A Superhero (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Vilanch[edit]

Bruce is highly underrated and unknown for the enormous body of work he produces every year for many of show biz' top names and seeing his name in the Academy Awards credits. I hope to make this article much improved and take a giant leap in class and priority (IMHO priority should have been higher in the first place.) Thank you for your attention. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween in the Castro[edit]

I'm new to editing articles in Wikipedia. Another editor seems to have resisted others' changes and some that I have proposed. I feel a little intimidated. Andy54321 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In re: Gill[edit]

This is about the case currently on appeal in Florida, which could overturn the gay adoption ban there. I'm interested in a general review. I want to help expand Wikipedia's coverage of legal cases related to LGBT rights and this is my first attempt. Thanks. Viciouslies (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments added by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I just want to start off by saying it's very apparent that a lot of hard work went into this article, and it really shows. There's just a few things that need to be done to improve it. Some are big, some are small. But really, it's a great first go.

The first sentence should be split into two sentences or shortened to make it clearer. You've also just given away the ending of the case in the lead without any mention of what happened in between. Nothing wrong with giving away the ending, the lead should be a summary of the article, but you need to include the in-between parts as well. You could also take out a lot of the detail here and simply say: "As a result of the case the plaintiff was granted legal guardianship" or something similar.

We don't need to know what state to boys were in when they arrived in foster care. It's pertinent in the court case but it isn't pertinent to the court case itself which is what this article should be focussing on. Better to focus on when they arrived, how long they were there etc. etc.

'Thriving in their new home' isn't something we can categorically state, even if a source stated it. It isn't neutral to the facts of the matter. What is important is that a judge terminated the parental rights of the boys' biological parents, and that Martin contacted the ACLU.

Similarly stating what Martin knew, however true, is veering dangerously close to a third person narrative rather than an encyclopedic article.

What studies did the ACLU cite? This would be very good to know. Similarly, you're painting the plaintiffs in a good light by vaguely mentioning their studies and the defendents' witness in a bad light by making the assertion that his evidence had been discredited. This either needs a source or needs to be removed immediately. A more balanced take on the evidence presented/witnesses would be better. Doesn't mean you have to not mention that the evidence was discredited, or that the plaintiffs evidence was widely accepted, just means you have to have an equally scrupulous mind and lots of sources, when discussing both sets of evidence.

There should probably be a section dedicated to the outcome of the trial rather than just a paragraph in another section.

More about the appeal please!

This peer review discussion has been closed.
These concerns were addressed and rectified when I did a massive edit of the article, with many additional sources, in July 2011; somehow, I missed the note that said there was a peer review open on this, but I am now removing the tag from the article's talk page. Textorus (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Joanne Conte[edit]

Looking for ideas to improve the quality of the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Quick comment from WPBio There is a lot of good material, but the article misses some basic structure. All that is in the lead needs to be in the article. The lead is merely a summary of the article content. An infobox would be good and a photo could be reasonably obtained by contacting either Conte or someone who owns a pic and knows her, if possible. Hekerui (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

White Night Riots[edit]

I have done a lot of work on this article recently, and would like to to be evaluated. I plan on pushing it up to GA-class soon, and I would like some feedback on the work i've done. Today I added 3 new sources and substantially cleaned up and expanded the coverage of the article. I have a fourth source on its way via inter-library loan, which I hope I can get a significant amount of information out of. I think that with some work, this could be FA-class before too long. Firestorm Talk 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Moon and the Sandals[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to GA-class or later, FA-class.

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The lead should be longer per WP: Lead. Try adding a short overview of reception.
  • For only 2 volumes the plot sections seems to be very long.
  • If if you know information about the creation of the manga it would be good to add it. Since the publication section is a bit short merge it with the section about creation once it is created. I guess it could be named Development and publication.
Agreed on the plot (I wrote it to replace the incorrect one there, but left a note on the talk page that it needs paring down). I will recheck the volumes tonight to see if there is any production information, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual[edit]

There is an article cleanup tag on this page and I want to know if the quality of the article is such that it can be removed. This is a controversial article. There is currently a POV dispute. I am not looking for anything related to that dispute. Simply is the article good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. I am seeking at least two reviews before doing anything. Hfarmer (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems that the whole asessment and review process for LGBT articles has broken down and no reply has came here in weeks I declare this review closed.

Dracula's Daughter[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.

  • In lead, first mention of Universal - My assumption is that "Universal" is a shortened version of the full name; why not say "Universal Studios"?
  • In plot summary, this may sound pedantic, but it does not say that Dracula's daughter was a vampire before she's trying to be cured of vampirism. For absolute clarity, and for boneheads like me, it might be worth being more explicit. Later in that paragraph, I'm not sure the word "mesmerizing" is accurate. See mesmerism. You may also want to break up the plot summary into two or three paragraph for easier readability. Towards the end, some of the sentences get a little long and hard to follow; you might want to break them up too.
  • The Production section could also be carved into a couple paragraphs and reorganized. I suggest, for exapmle, a paragraph right before "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer", and reserve that first paragraph for info on the source story, then go into the Universal vs. MGM thing. In fact, this is probably the only significant reorganization/rewriting I'd recommend. I don't think it's major but it would substantially improve things. The section is also severely low on citations. Maybe add a few more footnotes? A couple long, hard-to-follow sentences in this section too, notably: The script included scenes that implied that Dracula's daughter enjoyed torturing her male victims and that while under her control the men liked it too, along with shots of the Countess's chambers being stocked with whips and straps, which she would never use on-screen but whose uses the audience could imagine.
  • Director section starts with another overwhelmingly long sentence. This section is probably the best as far as citations so good work there.
  • Universal script section could use another footnote here and there if you can cite further.
  • The section on the lesbian overtones of the film was fascinating (I have yet to see another quote in a Wikipedia article along the lines of "impressive Euro-butch dyke bloodsucker")! It might be a bit weighty but it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure it's in the ideal order though; it's sort of sandwiched between Reception and Influence. On the Entertainment Weekly quote, it might be worth putting the date of that quote in the prose (I think we suddenly jumped a couple decades). Same thing with the Celluloid Closet film; it might need a date too. The other quotes seem okay ("reviewers of the day") but it's interesting to know the time differences. The second to last paragraph there is also only two sentences; typically, I recommend aiming for minimum of three per paragraph. Either split up a sentence (Maybe the last sentence could be "She is finally interrupted by the arrival of Dr. Garth" or something) or splice it back into the paragraph above.
  • Influence section is a bit short. I might suggest moving this into the reception section, possibly under the heading "Reception and influence" - with one exception, the note that it inspired homoerotic vampire fiction should definitely stay with the lesbianism section. It might solve my little question about the order of the Lesbian implications section.

I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

James Dobson[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done extensive work on it with very little external input. Ultimately, I want to know how to get this article to GA, then FA, despite the fact that it is a BLP of a particularly controversial figure. I've no GA/FA particpation so far, so I could use help with process advice, as well as article feedback. Ultimately, I want this article to be suitable to appear on Wikipedia's front page upon Dobson's death.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. For example, Ted Bundy is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several of the views are not in the lead (which should be more than one paragraph). Please see WP:LEAD
  • Several places in the article need more references - for example the last paragraph of Background has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Be consistent in refering to him - he should probably be called Dobson throughout, but is also refered to as Dr. Dobson, James Dobson, and James Jr. I would also avoid a bare URL link in the text - I would put http://www.ryandobson.com/ in a footnote / ref.
  • Read WP:HEAD and look at the Views section. Also avoid one and two sentence paragraphs by combining them with others or expanding if possible.

As for experience in GA and FA, watch WP:GAN and read some successful and unsuccessful GA nominations to see what people are looking for in these reviews (a model biography article would also be a good idea - there are lots of Bio FAs). I would then watch WP:FAC when the time comes for FA. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles J. O'Byrne[edit]

I made a stub and then flushed it out in a day, and I think it has potential to go to GA or higher. It has been through a copy edit and proofreading by the League of Copyeditors, now I would like to get feedback and collaboration on what needs to be done to further improve this to FA (aside from getting it from 20k to 50k). MrPrada (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) All in all I think this is a really good article. There are a few things which need to be changed though (most of them are very very minor). I've listed them below in the order that they appear in the article. Hope it helps and good luck!

  • Lead sentence could be split into two sentences to make it a little clearer. Second sentence could also be rephrased (maybe with the quote at the beginning?), just to make it sound less wordy.
  • The sentence about the book release being withheld really needs a source.
  • More lead up to the priesthood part. Why did he leave litigation? It seems to be an utterly random change in careers. There must be sources on his 'conversion' (if you will). The sentence "The Kennedys have also come to rely on him for matters other than spiritual guidance." should either be explained and sourced or removed. I know he gives them money but that doesn't mean that they are relying on him. $1000 is a very small amount.
  • The sentence: "School officials, wary perhaps, in O'Byrne's words, of his Ivy League pedigree," should be rewritten to make absolutely clear that it is a quote from O'Byrne rather than an opinion. At the moment it reads a little bit like an op-ed.
  • The part about the children being sexually active doesn't appear to have any context in the article. It's certainly interesting but how is it pivotal to the man's career? The next paragraph doesn't actually make reference to him doing that or how it affected anything. It could be rewritten in the context of the contrast between that attitude and his later stance at Harvard and then his attitude again in the playboy article.
  • How did the man's superiors determine that he didn't wish to remain in the order? Did he ask to leave? This seems important.
  • The sentence: "but his service with Dean had been so impressive that he received a call from State Senate Minority Leader David Paterson" could be written from a far more neutral point of view, whilst still showing that it was his outstanding work that got him the call.
  • "As Secretary to the Governor, he is seen as the "tough guy" to counterbalance the more casual Paterson" - Even if this is in the article that is used as a source, it is too much like an op-ed peice rather than an encyclopedic fact.
  • "The position of O'Byrne, and his openly gay deputy secretary Sean Patrick Maloney in the Paterson administration, signals strong support of civil rights for the LBGT community" - does it? How? Just because they hired a gay person? How is this relevant to the article's subject? The quote afterwards seems as though it might be more relevant. You may want to add a sub-section on LGBT issues and go into more depth in how he supports LGBT rights. The first sentence just isn't enough to support the assertion.
  • The last paragraph may need its own section. The article as a whole is not particularly neutral, and this particular part of his story seems to act as a counter-balance to the positive parts in the rest of the article. It doesn't need to be a long section, but a little more information seems appropriate.

Matthew Shepard[edit]

I think there is some room for improvement to reach FA with this article, but I would like to see what everyone else thinks needs to be done to improve it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks good so far - near to GA status in my opinion. It would be more readable with more images to break up the text - no pictures of the protests or vigils or charity logo or trial etc available.?Yobmod (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Gittings[edit]

Hot women with picket signs! I'd like to submit for GA and I've not written an article about a political activist so I'm looking for feedback that I've covered as many bases as I can. Please let me know if there are glaring omissions. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Belovedfreak[edit]

Great article, Moni, I really enjoyed reading it. Here's a few thoughts:

  • I would maybe (not sure myself) state what DOB is in that 1st sentence. I say maybe because you've just stated that she was a gay rights activist, so it might be clear enough, but I don't know if it would be better to say something like "She organized the New York chapter of the lesbian rights group Daughters of Bilitis ...".
  • There are some names of people who are not immediately obvious to the casual reader. (Frank Kameny, Matt Foreman, Jack Nichols)... could do with saying who they are, and wikilinking them at the very least. (Kameny & Foreman are not linked.)
  • The sentence "She was a part of the movement to get the American Psychiatric Association to drop homosexuality as a mental illness in 1972" ... "drop" sounds a little informal to me - don't know how I'd change it though.
  • In the Education section, "Despite being an excellent student..." - who said she was an excellent student? Were that her own description of herself? If so, may be a little POV, if not, you might need to clarify who said it.
  • In the same section, "While majoring in drama..." the concept of an academic major may not be immediately obvious to a non-US reader.
  • I can see why you've added refs to IMDb for films that don't have articles yet. Bear in mind - FAC reviewers don't like any references to IMDb.
  • MOS doesn't like flags in infobox.

That's all I can really see for now. --BelovedFreak 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BDSM[edit]

This is the translation of the featured German article de:BDSM. It has been copy edited by User:Jeffpw.
The missing content from the older :en version was mostly integrated, additional references have been added. Further references might be usefull, please feel free to add. ;-)
Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to Good article and FA-Class on :de, I hope this review will help to move it to an higher level. --Nemissimo (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reel Affirmations[edit]

I am requesting peer review for this article because 1) It is comprehensive in nature; 2) contains inline citations; 3) contains practically every citation I can find; 3) contains quality images which relate specifically to the content of the article; and 4) I think it'll be a Good Article candidate fairly soon. This is the first step toward that. Thanks! - Tim1965 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Teodoro Maniaci[edit]

I just finished copying and posting this article from my sandbox. I would like an honest review and to find more cites, preferably better reviews than I found for some of his films! I also desperately need proof that he has a partner -- somebody may consider this libel! Can you all please read, copy-edit, and find cites? Thanks in advance. Bearian 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Níð[edit]

I've noticed my article Níð has been found good enough to be tagged by your project since last December, being rated B-Class. However, I've found no information such as a held discussion under which criteria my article had been assessed so, and curiously enough, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology tagged and rated my article in the same class half a year ago, so I'd like to know where it's still lacking (and what qualified it to not score lower than B-Class either). In this regard, I've been pondering these issues:

  1. I realize the first problem readers, editors, and reviewers might come across is that most of the sources are German which many readers and editors of the English-language Wikipedia might not be able to verify, however I don't think that qualifies them as ultimately un-verifiable by WP standards.
  1. I have the suspicion that many of the tags (note even though the "give more sources" tag is right at the top, they don't even specify what it is that they want even further sourced, and I wonder how many more articles Wikipedia has with a number of 80+ references and sources as this one) currently found in the article stem from a problem editors with a neo-Pagan (be it Asatru or Wiccan) agenda seem to have with legitimate and authoritative scientific research and original saga accounts of the contemporary moral assessment and numerous associations of seid magic among Norse people as you can see in a dispute here[1]. These self-professed neo-Pagan editors obviously absolutely arbitrarily mix up the Galdr practice of the Vanir component of Norse religion, neolithic shamanism, and a lot of other ancient as well as modern occult and esoteric material in order to create some completely random "seid" label they intend to practice today as part of their recreational neo-Pagan lifestyles. They vehemently oppose any association of "their" modern-day "seid" with those things historical seid was, as a matter of fact, originally regarded as or equated with in contemporary Norse culture, and don't seem to give a darn about original or scientific sources.
  1. Lastly, as related to the first of these three issues, I realize that Anglophone studies and research are at a rather basic level when analyzing assessment of same-sex behavior or even homophobic tendencies in ancient or proto-historic Germanic culture, and as a result they completely ignore at this point the whole religious context and background, while on the other hand quite a lot of modern English-language homophobia studies blame it all on monotheism or even just Christianity while it's clearly a common Indo-European concept (I know there might be some problems to fit in the Hellenic culture but that issue had been solved by Schmoeckel 1982 and Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1990 by reviewing the archeological evidences of the process of Indo-European invasion in Greece within a more proper timeline than previously) even more archaic than Judaism, it's just that the Norse and Germanic culture preserved its original, un-rationalized archaic form even longer than the classical mediterrean polytheisms. Even at an international level, the only three sources I can find that extensively and comprehensively cover the issue of Norse homophobia exhaustively along with its religious and cultural background, partly even with its complete Indo-European context, happen to be German (Klein 1930, Grönbech 1954, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1978, plus several more recent German scholarly sources relying on Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg), and all three identify the nithing as the core concept of Germanic homophobia. --Tlatosmd 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Article appears to be well-sourced, but all in German. If English-language references exist, they should be added. I suspect that whoever tagged it as needing additional sources wanted English references. I have no idea if such are available, nor am I capable of evaluating the German sources. Perhaps we have a German scholar who can comment? Aleta (Sing) 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
With a little work this might be ready for WP:GA... ??? Aleta (Sing) 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
the sources seem fine from the titles, and could be requested at any library i suspect, so are ok imo (although english language is preffered, it is not required, certainly not for GA). The lead needs a prnunciation guide, essential for a non-english word, that uses an foreign letter. Any pictures available? For something so old, i would expect a copyright free woodcut /lithograph to be available (of a witch trial at least).
Apart from that, it already looks like a good article to me. Does the origianl poster know that the projects can only give B class? It needs to be submitted as a GA candidate to go higher. (ah, he's indef blocked!) Yobmod (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association[edit]

I have questions about the extent to which NAMBLA played apart in the gay rights movement and also I think there are POV issues with this article. Jmm6f488 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Content issues should go to requests for comments. Peer review is better after such issues are solved.Yobmod (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force[edit]

Considering this article for B class and ultimately would like to nominate it for GA class. Varnent

Wafulz[edit]

I guess I'll review this in accordance with WP:WIAGA

  • Writing
  • Grammar, prose, and tone are pretty bad
  • It is written in first person. It should be written in third.
  • "The first national LGBT rights organization, they remained relatively uncontested" should start with "As the first..."
  • Decades should be written without apostrophes (ie "1980s" vs "1980's"). Relevant decades can be wikilinked.
  • The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD
  • It is not properly wikified. It needs more relevant wikilinks
  • It reads like an advertisement
  • The headers are poorly formatted. Only the first word should have a capital letter (with exceptions for proper nouns)
  • There are too many short sections consisting of just one paragraph or one sentence. They should be merged together or fleshed out with relevant detail.
  • Factual accuracy
  • There are only six inline citations. There should be far more. They also need proper formatting- see WP:CITE.
  • Five of the six citations are from the organization itself- this presents clear issues with regards to neutrality and a notability standpoint
  • I suggest you start from independent sources and rewrite the article
  • Broad coverage
  • There's a lot said about the organization's goals, mission, and function, but very little about perception and reaction. I'm sure that as a 1973 homosexual establishment it has had some sort of problems or media coverage. The article is only about 10kb in length- 20kb is the barebones floor minimum for most articles to be considered "comprehensive"
  • It needs a history section. Articles on organizations should examine them from an historical perspective, with a fully encyclopedic tone.
  • Neutrality
  • Written entirely from the perspective of the organization, and written like a brochure, this article is definitely nowhere near neutral
  • Stable
  • Seems fine.
  • Images.
  • Needs more images- does the organization have a headquarters? Posters of any sort? Free images are preferred. The organization logo lacks fair use rationale.

This article isn't really close to good article status. It's definitely still start-class, and will probably require a full rewrite with more, better sources.-Wafulz 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN[edit]

I've added some references of criticism, but that section could be expanded quite a bit. Another criticism I didn't include is that the organization is "too mainstream". I also organized it a bit. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Triangle Foundation[edit]

Also considering this article for B class and ultimately would like to nominate it for GA class. Varnent

  • Comment The citations need formatting - I have formatted citation 12 as an example. LuciferMorgan 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Belovedfreak[edit]

This is looking pretty good so far. A couple of things:

  • I agree with LuciferMorgan's comment. See WP:CITE.
  • The lead could be expanded somewhat, to better summarise the article. It should be able to act as a stand-alone summary. See WP:LEAD.
  • Everything in the lead section should be in the main article, (expanded) and as a result youshouldn't need citations in the lead, because they'll be in the main article.
  • In the "Community Building Program" it says "our events" which makes it sound a bit like advertising / promo.
  • Following on from that, statements like "...this program attempts to instill a sense of activism and need for community involvement..." without citations, well how do we know? It sounds like it's written by the organisation.
  • The four events mentioned in that section could do with being expanded.
  • I think in general it needs more third party references. Maybe the same ones already being used, but used more often so there aren't as many unsourced statements, especially about goals / intentions.
  • Maybe a little more about the history, who founded it, the circumstances etc?
  • The logo needs a Fair use rationale.
  • I don't know if it would be possible to get any pictures, maybe of the events. That would be a great addition.
  • I added "American" to the lead sentence. I hope you don't mind. Otherwise it is not immediately obvious to non-Americans where this organisation is. There are too many articles that don't explicitly state that the topic is American, or British or whatever.

Hope some of this helps! --Belovedfreak 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes that all helps a great deal. I'll be out of town for a couple of weeks. However, I'll be sure to implement those suggestions when I return - thank you! -Varnent 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde[edit]

I am shortly to be doing a Jumpaclass for Robbie Ross, and because his life is most often written about through the context of Oscar's life, I'm going to be wading through every Oscar biography I can get my hands on. Which means I may as well get some work done on Oscar's article as well while I have the material in front of me (after I've finished the Jumpaclass). Immediate issues I can see are the short unhelpful lead and a lack of inline citations, but I haven't given the article that close an inspection. Reviews with an eye to an eventual FAC would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 30 miles, use 30 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 30&nbsp;miles.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), offence (B) (American: offense), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled), aging (A) (British: ageing).
  • 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 misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • 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.

The suggestions above are automatically generated so I don't know how many are generated from quotes rather than your actual article, anyway, I would suggest expanding the lead. Thanks, DrKiernan 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit[edit]

This article has some good parts, but many of the lists need to be changed into prose and whole sections on Wilde's writings need to be included. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

Missing sections:

  • There should be entire sections on Wilde's writings that explain their major themes and reception. These can either be integrated into the biography (see Sarah Trimmer) or separated out (see Anna Laetitia Barbauld, whichever you think works best for Wilde).

Content and organization:

  • I would delete the "Influences" and "Influenced" lists from the infobox. These lists are arbitrary, subjective and massive. Any important influences should be discussed in the article.
  • When you introduce people, you have to mention who they are in a brief phrase. Not all readers are going to know the names you are mentioning.
  • EX: Here, Lady Wilde held a regular Saturday afternoon salon with guests including Sheridan le Fanu, Samuel Lever, George Petrie, Isaac Butt and Samuel Ferguson.
  • EX: as it was in keeping with the doctrine of Art for art's sake, coined by the philosopher Victor Cousin, promoted by Theophile Gautier and brought into prominence by James McNeill Whistler
  • Wilde's address in the 1881 British Census is given as 1 Tite Street, London. The head of the household is listed as Frank Miles with whom Wilde shared rooms at this address. - This seems extraneous unless you can give more context.
  • Legends persist that his behaviour cost him a dunking in the River Cherwell in addition to having his rooms (which still survive as student accommodation at his old college) trashed, but the cult spread among certain segments of society to such an extent that languishing attitudes, "too-too" costumes and aestheticism generally became a recognised pose. - You might think about explaining "too-too" costumes and other topics readers might not be familiar with.
  • Wilde's mode of dress also came under attack by critics such as Higginson, who wrote in his paper Unmanly Manhood, at his general concern that Wildes' effeminacy would influence the behaviour of men and women, arguing that his poetry "eclipses masculine ideals [..that..] under such influence men would become effeminate dandies'. - Who is Higginson? awkward sentence - keeps going and going
  • Though he was sometimes ridiculed for them, his paradoxes and witty sayings were quoted on all sides. - Can we get a quote?
  • The section on Wilde's arrest is a little disorganized. Also, why not a quote from the famous poem?
  • Can you expand on De Profundis? What are differences between the versions? What does it actually say?
  • The "Biographies" section should either be rewritten in prose or made part of a "Bibliography" (by the way, novels are not biographies - the novelizations of Wilde's life should be separated out).
  • "Biographical films" should be written in prose, perhaps part of a "Legacy" section.

Prose:

  • The article needs a copy editor. There are quite a few awkward sentences:
  • EX: He was granted a scholarship to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he continued his studies from 1874 to 1878 and where he became a part of the Aesthetic movement, one of its tenets being to make an art of life.
  • EX: He also scrutinises the link that Oscar Wildes' writing, personal image and homosexuality may have, resulting in calling his work and lifestyle 'Immoral'.

Images:

  • Can we get a better picture of the Wilde statue in Merrion Square?
  • The "offending inscription" should be written out in the caption - the writing is hard to read.

Other:

  • The lead problem you have already recognized (see WP:LEAD for helpful hints on writing the lead).
  • The inline citation problem you have already noted (see WP:CITE for rules on this).

Let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. I look forward to reading the improved article. Wilde is an important figure and I'm glad someone has taken on the project of writing this article. Awadewit | talk 11:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you. I've been having library card troubles but I should be fully booksed up in the next days and I look forward to dealing with your suggestions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely certain where the hell a week went, but I do now have the books. It must because it's the holidays or something... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)