Talk:Homosexuality/GA2
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any criticism missing in the article, but for sure exist in real world. Think, that GA cannot be reached at all in this kind of thema/article.--DeeMusil (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. The article for Lesbian is a GA. There is a way to write this article with GA or FA quality in mind. Doing so would be an extensive job in time and effort, however. It does not appear to be a priority among the editors who watch and edit this article to do this for Homosexuality. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Any criticism missing in the article, but for sure exist in real world. Think, that GA cannot be reached at all in this kind of thema/article.--DeeMusil (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Following this notice at Cirt's talk page, I shall take over this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: Fixed three and unlinked ubiquity as there is no Wikipedia article on that. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary instead?[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: 1 repaired and 13 tagged. Some of these have been dead since before the article was delisted.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- There are a number of stray sentences which need to be consolidated into paragraphs.
- The third paragraph of Lesbian narratives and awareness of their sexual orientation is rather dense and could be broken up.
- Otherwise well written.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- Thirteen dead links have been tagged, no Internet Archive substitutes found for these links.
- Admittedly, many of these examples are inherently problematic because of applying the modern category of "homosexuality" to a time where none-such forms of identity existed. needs attribution.
- There are a number of outstanding citation needed tags and I added some more.
- Available sources check out.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- I belive that this is broad and focussed.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Fine
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- All appear to check out, tagged, licensed and captioned
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, there have been no attempts to address these concerns, but there has been a certain maount of edit-warring so that is a belated quick fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: