Talk:Cisnormativity

Latest comment: 10 months ago by FenrisAureus in topic GA Review

Western gender binary

edit

What is a "western" gender binary? Is it different to the east? Can we drop the word "Western"? 67.83.108.122 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done; it makes more sense without it and it isn't the place for commentary on where a gender binary does or does not apply - though I'll note that the gender binary is most certainly not restricted to the West. Crossroads -talk- 23:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
The reason I had it like that is quite simply that that's what the source says. I'm not that attached to that nuance, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cisnormativity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FenrisAureus (talk · contribs) 11:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA review

edit

Last updated: 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC) by Maddy from Celeste

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

  1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
  1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

  2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
  2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
  2c) it contains no original research
Sources spot checked for reliability and NOR:
Ref # pass/fail
4  Pass
15  Pass
16  Pass
23  Pass
28  Pass
FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
Earwig score 2% similarity. [1] Plagarism highly unlikely. — FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

3) Broad in its coverage

  3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
  3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

  4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

  5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

  6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
  6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:   Looks good to me. Pass.FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comments:

Full body scanners

edit

It might be worth adding something to the article in the consequences section about those TSA Full body Scanners. See: Full body scanner#Treatment of transgender people and the bibliography of this video for sources on the topic.— FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply