Talk:Troughman

BLP compliance explanation

It is uncertain if Troughman is currently alive so treating him as BLP is the best way forward. I relied upon his self witnessing of sexual biography in an edited peer reviewed journal article whose article editor was an expert and who commented on the piece which was published in an on topic academic journal for the sexual biography. For fame and myth I relied upon pieces published in the major broadsheet for Sydney and official blogs edited on that broadsheets online content pages. I think given that the subject self witnessed in an academically reviewed space and the media articles were subject to editorial process mindful of NSW libel law that this is BLP compliant. The tone is certainly dispassionate. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - in the absence of any evidence that he is dead, we must assume that he is alive for BLP purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncensored

Yes, Virginia, Wikipedia is uncensored. I shall bookmark this article to refer to whenever notability issues arise. Since it made the Main Page I was relieved, you might say, that it did not read "laying down in urinals."--Wetman (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Given his mythic status I was not going to include speculation. But the myth seems to accord with the reported practice. Lying down in urinals was a sexual practice in itself in the academically reported material. However, the myth seems to accord with the academic reports: in myth he simply lies down and soaks in the ambience. (I am so glad I got the verb right, I double checked to see if you were being ironic!) As far as notability goes, I remember there having been far more passing mentions in Sydney media, and there were Sydney Star Observer (a GLBT paper) items but they don't have deep searching. I used a few academic databases with results from 1986 for the Sydney Morning Herald, but didn't get other hits. SSO, while reliable, isn't online, and I suspect I'd be getting into primary-research territory. Troughman is often mentioned in passing in chapters in non-academic books, but these appear merely to be stroking the myth rather than substantive coverage. I suppose it makes for an interesting notability case, but from a Sydney perspective, with multiple independent reports beyond a single party or mythic expression, he's notable to me. As far as censorship goes, I went for simple style, and used his own words for his sexual practice, highlighting only the most important moment in terms of myth rather than going into non-notable details. Censorship didn't have anything to do with that writing, only an attempt to explain the encyclopaedic content. I wrote the damn thing because I wanted to casually refer to him in a discussion of urinal practice, and didn't find a wikipedia hit. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moray An Par (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2011 (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):

   I am not sure if his DOB doesn't follow MOS:BIO but wouldn't it be better if you'd write it in full "1950 or 1951" vs "1950/51"?

   Is it possible that we can list notable people doing the same practices (given it's rarity) in a "see also" section?

   Use an infobox.

   Who is Robert Reynolds? How is his commentary relevant to Troughman? Is he a columnist on a gay/gender magazine? A mainstream media icon/journalist?

   I think "it becomes easy to let myself go completely and, no longer kneeling or crouching, I lie right down in the urinal." should be in another sentence.

   I'd suggest linking Mardi Gras and Australian.

   External links on video coverage on him or related articles on him would be nice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref 8 has a bare link. Consider using citation templates (though is not necessary; you can always do it manually). It makes things easier.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article is obviously short, which makes me doubt if he fulfills WP:GNG under "significant coverage"

   If he's really that famous, why isn't there any info on his birthplace, parents, childhood, education and so many other things?

   Expanding on "Part of the myth of Troughman included persistent rumours of death." may be beneficial to the article, and may be worth mentioning.

   Also on that sentence, it mentions "part of the myth of Troughman" without even discussing what are the myths surrounding him.

   What other watersports?

   Discussing the activity he is most known for outside the quote.

   What happened of him? Did he marry? Die? Where is he now? Did he have children? Is he now a gay rights activist? Has he been involved in any similar (or dissimilar) cause?

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):

   Is the urinal necessary? Wouldn't a fair use picture of him do better? I'd assume that he has a picture on the internet given his "underground celebrity" status.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I honestly believe that this article is lacking on very many key points. I'll put this on hold so that the established user who nominated this may find time to expand (with emphasis) this article. Moray An Par (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Result

The nominator have been informed for quite sometime now, and this review have been already over a week. The nominator has expressed no interest in improving the article after this review. Hence, this nomination is failed. Moray An Par (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)