Talk:Leelah Alcorn/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grabbing this for a review, but it might take a little while for me to respond. By the way, if you have time, I have an FAC up right now that might interest you--it's this about the transgender-related film Boys Don't Cry. I would love for you to look at it! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Remove comma in first sentence.
    • Agreed and done. Previously, I was humming and harring over whether it should remain or not, but if your vote is for its removal then I'm happy to agree. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the use of the shortening "trans" throughout.
    • I've gone through and made the changes, except for in those instances where "Trans" is part of an organisation's name, or where it is used in a direct quotation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead looks good, but the lead paragraph that discusses "Reaction" is organized slightly differently than the section itself.
    • According to WP:LEDE, there's no specific need for the lede section to be structured in the same way as the later article sections; so long as the lede accurately summarises the information then there shouldn't be a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Describing herself as being raised in a conservative Christian environment…" This is a picky thing, but after this clause, it should be "she and her family", not just "her family", as otherwise, it would imply that the "herself" in this clause was referring to the family.
  • "...although according to Alcorn, by this time her relationship with many of them had become strained and she continued to feel isolated." Clunky organization--how about "although by this time, according to Alcorn, her relationship with many of them had become strained and she continued to feel isolated."
  • "and called for gender issues to be taught in schools." I would reword this as well, as perhaps "issues surrounding gender identity" would be more appropriate.
  • "The Boston Globe described it as a 'passionate post'." Shouldn't this be in "Reaction"?
    • I had initially included this in the "Death" section because it was describing the content of the suicide note and thus I felt that it would be better placed there but if you really think that "Reaction" is preferable than I'm okay with it being moved? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a file of Savage would be helpful in the "Criticism of Alcorn's parents" section in an article lacking in illustration generally?
    • I had originally included an image of Savage in that section, but another editor (I forget who) removed it, claiming that it wasn't relevant and that it unduly promoted Savage. However, given that you have now suggested it once more I will re-add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I don't really think it makes any sense to claim that this somehow supports Savage. Images like this are added in all the time, and his comments are a big part of this section. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reaction section looks quite good as well, but I would try to make use of transition sentences and topic sentences at the top of paragraphs in order to make the sections more organized rather than just a list of information.
  • I think it meets WP:SYNTHNOT but you don't have to if you don't want to. What I was primarily asking for is for the section and paragraphs to be organized thematically.
  • Do you have any specific recommendations? I had tried to organise this section thematically to start with, albeit with some attention to chronology as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 is dead.
    • Do you mean the International Business Times citation? If so, it seems to be working on my browser... Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It said ref 26 in checklinks, but it's actually ref 23 (the 700wlw one). It's a soft 404. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Nice work on this very important article! I'm finding very little wrong with it, as the sources could not be better and the prose is good mostly. Fix these things and I will gladly pass! :)

  • Many thanks for the comments @Johanna:; I have responded to your points. On some of them you may wish to offer a further counter-comment and what not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful work. If you plan on taking this to FA, I might suggest a peer review first, but good work on getting it to GA!

Final evaluation[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leelah_Alcorn/GA1&oldid=1061533928"