Talk:The Homosexual Matrix

The Body Politic review

It is my understanding that The Homosexual Matrix was reviewed in The Body Politic magazine. There is a link here. Unfortunately, I have no access to the review. I would be grateful if someone who could find access would summarize the review in the article. There is more discussion of the work here, to which I also do not have access; the same remarks apply. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Homosexual Matrix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 21:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy to field this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the lede:

• It is looking a little clustered at present, given that everything is crammed into one paragraph. Consider dividing it up into at least two paragraphs, possibly three. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• "by psychologist Clarence Arthur Tripp" - specify the nationality. I'm guessing that he's American? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Include the publisher name in one of the opening sentences' maybe incorporate that with the year of publication as part of a separate sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the referencing:

• Something is wrong here; the formatting appears to be awry. Citations are supposed to automatically take the viewer to the listed publication when clicked upon. There is also some lack of regularity in the citations. Make sure that they formatted correctly to avoid these problems. Using the 'harv' referencing system that I use in my articles will help here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• When listing book reviews, also give the page numbers in which they appeared in the journal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. WP:SFN Harv errors are rife in this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:SFN. Each citation needs {{sfn|last|year|page=[link #]}} I fixed the books and articles, but many of them are missing years or publication dates. Take a look at Lagden's bushshrike to see how it should be done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To give you a concrete example, I fixed {{sfn|Tripp|pages=22–35, 94–100, 270}} so that it links to the book. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Midnightblueowl. This is going to take some time to address, and I suspect some back and forth discussion. I have to say right away that in some cases, the page number information isn't to my knowledge readily available. I have WP:EBSCO access, and much of the article information was taken from articles I accessed that way, and the lack of page number information reflects the limits of that resource. I didn't exclude it on a whim. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 7&6=thirteen's comment that many of the books and articles "are missing years or publication dates", I believe the problem here is in fact restricted to some of the articles. It can be fixed, though keep in mind that not all periodicals give exact dates of publication. Thus, for example, Gay Left gives only the year and the season (Winter 1977 in this case), not the precise month or day, of publication. Some advice on how to deal with such cases would help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have divided the lead into two paragraphs as per Midnightblueowl's suggestion. I am not sure that there is enough material in the article for a third paragraph. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Years will do. I've wade through some of them. It's just a slog. And while we are doing it, the name of the newspaper, work, etc. and the publisher and agency, would be a good addition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am also going to point out that I have accessed many sources online, and those online resources in some cases just do not include page information. The New York Review of Books is an example of this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (But I was, with some difficulty, able to find the information in this case). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Very well. At this stage, I have modified the lead along the lines suggested by Midnightblueowl, and I also believe I have largely resolved formatting and citation issues (if what I have done is wrong in any way whatever then I'd ask that interested users either fix it themselves or tell me how and I will do it). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Citations are fixed. Small problem with a couple of dates remains. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The two Lynch articles. The paper uses a wierd bimonthly format to describe its date. There is a red bot notice next to them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to use simply the year in these cases, if the month information is causing the problem? Or is there some other way to fix this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Year would 'cure' the problem, but not be fully true to the source. I don't know how to otherwise fix this. Obviously, if I knew the fix it would be done. We could ask for HELP. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Asked for help here. Someone may be able to offer a better solution, but I think that if the reference for Gay Left can give only the information for the year, that should also be acceptable in the case of the two The Body Politic references. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Issue now fixed by The Voidwalker. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the images:

• File:The Homosexual Matrix, 1975 edition.jpg seems fair use although the 'Non-free media information and use rationale' needs updating to include publisher's name; after all, copyright is likely owned by the publisher. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• File:Alfred Kinsey 1955.jpg seems fine. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• It would be nice to have an image in the "Summary" or "1975–1978" sections. Not essential, by any means, and it won't affect the passing of this as a good article, but it would improve the article's aesthetics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've updated the 'Non-free media information and use rationale' to mention the book's publisher. I'll correct that if I haven't done it properly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the prose:

• "Tripp concluded the idea that homosexuality" would work better if slightly amended to "Tripp concluded that the idea that homosexuality". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• "show" is used a little repetitively in the second paragraph of "Summary". Perhaps one could be changed to a synonym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Perhaps the "Summary" section could be sub-divided further into sub-sections? That would probably make things a little easier and more enjoyable for the reader who, at present, is confronted with a long chunk of plain text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Made the first two of the changes you suggested. Working on a picture. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• " Based on studies of animal behavior, including primate studies, suggesting that sexual patterns depend on learning, he argued that human sexual orientation also depends on learning." - I think that this sentence could be restructured to read a little more smoothly. At present it's a tad clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• More to come. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Modified the sentence you mention above here. I have also added a picture to the summary section as suggested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry to be pedantic, FreeKnowledgeCreator, but one tip that I will give (as a longtime GA reviewer and contributor) is that when you respond to a particular point made by a reviewer, it is always best to do so directly under it. For instance, you have responded to a recommendation for further pictures not in the 'Regarding the images' section but in the 'Regarding the prose' section. That makes it a little more difficult for me as a reviewer to determine what points you agree with, what you disagree with, and what ones you have acted upon (and how). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I'll keep that in mind. I hope it is clear, nonetheless, that I have agreed with the majority of the points you made above. I have updated the Non-free media information and use rationale for File:The Homosexual Matrix, 1975 edition.jpg, and added a picture to the summary section, as you suggested. In fact I made every change you suggested above except dividing the summary section into sub-sections. I'll address your points below in the manner you suggest. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks for getting back to me on this point, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Don't worry, I understood your comments without a problem, but I just thought that I'd offer the suggestion stemming from my own experiences at GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• "the amount of attention fathers gives to their sons" - this should be "give" in the singular. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Corrected. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Tripp wrote that, "... when two " - no need for the ellipsis, particularly as you do not use them when quoting from Tripp's work elsewhere. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed ellipsis. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• In the third paragraph of "Summary" you include two citations, but in the fourth and fifth paragraphs you only have one. This is despite the fact that those latter paragraphs deal with multiple different issues. For instance, in that fifth paragraph you go from a discussion of promiscuity to one on conversion therapies, but only include the Tripp's page numbers that apply to promiscuity after you have discussed conversion therapies. Ideally, I would recommend having a citation at the end of every set of sentences which are on a particular topic rather than leaving them to the end of the paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Made the change you suggested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• "were thought-provoking others were ludicrous" - could probably do with a comma after "thought-provoking". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Added comma. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Hendin argued that Tripp saw homosexuality as superior to heterosexuality, saw sexual passion as dependent upon anger, mistakenly drew conclusions about heterosexuality from observations about homosexual behavior, had a distorted view of sexual history and a negative view of women, and that his conclusion that homosexuality is not related to fear or anger toward women, family relationships, or a reflection of confusion over sexual identity, was baseless." This is quite a lengthy sentence, and becomes a little unwieldy. How about trimming it in two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Did as you suggested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Author George Whitmore reviewed The Homosexual Matrix in the gay magazine The Advocate.[17] Michael Lynch reviewed The Homosexual Matrix in the gay magazine The Body Politic" - This is somewhat repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A reasonable point. I have modified the language here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I wonder to some extent whether the chronological ordering of reviews is the best way to go about it. Would it perhaps make more sense to arrange the reviews in a largely thematic way, for instance putting the reviews of gay liberationists and activists in one sub-section, those of psychologists in another, sexologists in another etc? This is by no means essential for the passing of the review, but may be something worthy of further consideration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I was skeptical at first that this change would work well. However, on reflection it seems like a very good suggestion, and I have made the change here. You may want to review what I've done and suggest further adjustments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • That looks really neat and tidy. I think it works in a much better manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well done on putting a lot of hard work into the development of this article! I'm confident that it meets the various GA criteria and am happy to pass it as such now. 14:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)