Talk:Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of GA Review recommendations, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
I was tempted to fail this article for GA outright, but then I thought better of it and thought I'd at least give you a chance. I'll write down a lot of recommendations and place it as GA on Hold. Unfortunately, this article needs a lot of work.
The lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD, per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Please expand lede intro sect to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
I count at least nine (9) large amounts of blockquoted text of quotations in the article, in addition to other quotations in the article body text. This is way, way, way too much use of quotations. I strongly strongly strongly recommend paraphrasing what is being said here, and remove all quotes.
Women = subsection is completely unsourced. Also, this sect is significantly smaller than the Men sect. That seems like an overweighting to the Men sect. This should be cited and then balanced out in overall weight somehow.
Footnotes sect = 2nd footnote is formatted quite oddly. Again, can paraphrase instead of blockquote here. But in any event quite oddly spaced here.

2. Verifiable?:

Not passing here at present. I've placed a couple citation needed tags, please add cites at those places.
Citations = strongly recommend going through and making sure all citations use WP:CIT templates, to increase standardization and uniformity.

3. Broad in coverage?: Okay here, good enough at least for GA standards at this point in time.

4. Neutral point of view?: Okay here, good enough at least for GA standards at this point in time.

5. Stable? Upon inspection, both the article and its talk page have not been edited at all since August 2015. Therefore, no outstanding problems with stability.

6. Images?:

File:Gay flag.svg = image review checks out okay = good image page at Wikimedia Commons.
File:Lesbian family.jpg = image review checks out okay = good image page at Wikimedia Commons.

#NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of GA Review recommendations, and not interspersed throughout, thanks

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not GA at this time

Unfortunately, the page is not GA at this time. The lede intro sect still doesn't meet WP:LEAD standards, and there's still the at least eight (8) uses of heavy blockquoting and way too much quotations throughout the article itself. Doesn't meet WP:BIAS, as the Women sect is still much shorter than that for Men. Conclusion: There's been some good improvements, but still needs a lot of work. Please consider a Peer Review before renominating again for GA, and at the peer review try to ask for input by posting neutrally worded notices on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Good luck, it's a topic of value for the encyclopedia, for sure, — Cirt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]