User talk:Shannonk2799/sandbox
Article evaluation
- The intro is not biased and includes references. I think it is concise overall. - I think the religion part is well-written. I think to expand there could be a section on how different religions view homosexuality (so instead of just how LGBT views religion, what about how religion views gays). - Autostraddle is "is an independently owned online magazine and social network for lesbian, bisexual, and queer women (cis and trans) as well as non-binary people," which may have a bias. I understand why possibly that the writer included this (must be hard to find data on), however, I do not think it can be a completely reliable source. - I think regarding the Lesbians section, 'The L Word' could have been entirely its own section because there is a lot of focus on it rather than Lesbian stereotypes in general. - I don't see how: "The way lesbians are portrayed leads people to make assumptions about individuals in everyday life," can be fact-checked because people get their views on people via different mediums. - I do not see how the "Lesbian feminists assert that a sexual component is unnecessary for a woman to declare herself a lesbian," has to do with this article on LGBT Stereotypes. - Sex and relationships: I think it's great that they included research from Columbia University. - There is a cite missing: "Participants in the study reported finding it difficult to befriend other gay men on a platonic basis" - The "British researchers report that up to 20% of gay men from central London gyms" is only reporting on gay men from central London gyms and I do not think that should be applicable to others. - Not necessary: "Woody Allen is quoted saying, "Being bisexual doubles your chance of a date on Saturday night." (Bisexual people, LGBT Stereotypes, Wikipedia). - Research: considering that this section is already about research performed, I'm very confused how there are not many citings. - I totally agree with the talk page regarding the Q+ in the LGBT community.