Talk:The Sex Party/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 00:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. I will be reviewing the article this weekend and next week. Thank you writing such an interesting article! ComputerJA (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

The article looks really good and I think it will pass. It is neutrally written, well-sourced, and comprehensive. I want to thank you again for writing this article; minor parties like this one are under-represented in Wikipedia, and I'm quite impressed you managed to expand the article to a decent size. Thank you and the others who have worked to save the article from deletion and promoting it to GA status.

I made several spelling/grammatical corrections as I read the article. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to tell me; I might have inadvertently made a mistake.

• "Among other points, the party advocated for reform of sex education in schools so that sexual issues are taught more gradually over time and included a more comprehensive coverage of sexual issues." – The fact that "sexual issues" is used twice can make the sentence sound a bit redundant. I would put "...a more comprehensive coverage of them."

• "with its founder being its party leader as John Ince, a Vancouver lawyer, author and co-owner" – The wording of "as John Ince" does not sound grammatically correct. A minor change will be fine.

• "He previously authored a non-fiction book, The Politics of Lust about the impact of antisexual attitudes or erotophobia on a society's political organization." – After the book is mentioned, the flow doesn’t seem right. For example, I would put it "…The Politics of Lust, which talks about the impact …"

• "sex behind a screen with slits for people to peer in — the eyes of the viewers would be recorded and displayed" – In my opinion, this would work a lot better if it is in two separate sentences.

• "losing to the incumbent BC Liberal Lorne Mayencourt." – What is a BC Liberal? I think linking it to the party’s article can help for curious readers.

• "losing to the NDP candidate Gregor Robertson." – See above.

• "The party de-registered with Elections BC effective December 21, 2012" – The intro and infobox say it happened on the 20th. I added a citation request for the sentence.

I still have to review the sources independently. This initial stage is solely an analysis of the grammatical corrections that I think need to be addressed. Thank you again! ComputerJA (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to review. I have made edits based on your notes [1]. maclean (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'll be working on reviewing the sources this week. Stay tuned, cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing sources

"and repealing provisions that allow municipalities to prohibit the sale of sex toys." – I might have read the citation and not seen it, but I could not find anything supporting this in source 7.

"Sex educator and small business owner Yvonne Tink in Vancouver-Kingsway," – I could not find anything about Yvonne Tink in source 7 either.

"performance piece involving a married couple having sex behind a screen with slits for people to peer in" – I could not find this information of married couples in source 12.

"John Ince stood in the Vancouver-Burrard riding but got only 111 votes (0.39%), coming in last place" – I may be wrong, so please clarify me: Ince got 0.39%, but Ian McLeord of the BRDC get 0.30%, and therefore less points than him? See source 19.

After this has been addressed, the article is ready for passing. Thanks for your hard work! ComputerJA (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have added cites and corrections in accordance with your notes. [2] maclean (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good job! Article passes. Thanks for the interesting article. ComputerJA (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)