Talk:LGBT/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Intro[edit]

Hello! I'm weebiloobil (talk · contribs), and I'll be your GA-reviewer. For reference during this process, you can see the criteria here. The review should be completed in 7 days, probably sooner. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. Thanks, and good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review will be here tomorrow - weebiloobil (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Hmm
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Seems a bit full of references to overload the prose, but this does not hinder the article
    B. MoS compliance:
    One occurance of 'meanwhile', which is a word to avoid. Otherwise, this article is fine MoS-wise. I think
    Removed. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Oh, yes
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    I doubt it could be referenced any more
    C. No original research:
    Perhaps a teensy-weensy bit - what the hell are 'growing pains'?
    Clarified. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    It is just an initialism, after all; well done for wringing an article out of it
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Just about. It almost tips the scales at some points, such as '"Queer" has many negative connotations to older people who remember the word as a taunt and insult, a usage of the term that has continued.', seemingly rejecting Queer as a viable alternative, but this does not really come through
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No recent edit wars that I can see
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Uh-oh. See here. This article is having a bit of a problem with images at the moment. Please look into it. I have left comments regarding this review on the images' deletion page.
    Images switched out. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    At the moment, but could change - see above
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Ordinarily, because this article has image problems, I would have to fail this article. However, I am awaiting the result of the deletion request, and so this article is now on an indefinite hold - feel free to edit it according to the other problems as noted above. Thank you - weebiloobil (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've addressed all the concerns - thank you for looking into this. -- Banjeboi 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - I have now passed this article. Celebrations all round! - weebiloobil (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! -- Banjeboi 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.