Talk:Homosexuality/GA2

GA Review

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)

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I belive that this is broad and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Fine

6. 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

7. 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)