Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/LGBT/1

LGBT

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep per improvements made and comments below. Geometry guy 20:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article needs reassessment. The "In non-Western cultures" section, which was added after the article first passed GA (see Talk:LGBT/GA1), is either unsuitable for the article or, in its present state, detrimental to the article and possibly taking it from GA status. Is this article about the four-letter initialism, or the community it describes? Both? Depending on the answer, the section indicates that the article either isn't focused enough or isn't detailed enough. The {{Expand section}} and {{vague}} tags, while not a quick-fail for GA or anything, look really bad on what is supposed to be among Wikipedia's best work.

I am also puzzled by the lead. The quote that constitutes the third paragraph does not reflect material treated later in the article. The lead also contains unformatted references referring to a poorly-defined "As of 2005" even though the second reference is from 2008.

So, in short, I think we need to take another look at this one. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 07:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is/was supposed to be about the initialism itself; its origins, use, variants etc. The non-western uses section does seem off-topic, as it is talking about acceptance of LGBT people, not how the term is used. As an initialism of english words, it is rarely if ever used in non-English speaking countries (Germany has LesBiSchwul for example), and when used has the same meaning anyway, so i don't see that such a section would be needed at all, unless there are sources documenting unusual use in particular countries.Yob Mod 10:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That prompted me to enter de:LesBiSchwul. Have a look at what it redirects to. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And same for just about all of the interlanguage links in the article. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the use in the other languages, but i live in Germany, and was at numerous gay pride (CSD day parades) in the last month, and LGBT is not used anywhere, except in an English language context. Some German speakers always prefer to use the English term, but i don't think that means broadness includes coverage in German. For example "Itgirl" is used in German and is in dictionaries as of this year (which LGBT is not), but that doesn't mean our article on the concept of It girl should have a section on its German use, imo. But then again, maybe articles on terms rather than underlying concepts should always have sections on international use. There are not many GAs doing this at the moment though, eg No worries only mentions Australia and America, when i know i have heard and read the term many times without visiting wither country, especially in Africa (Ghana).Yob Mod 11:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I have addressed all the stated issues and I appreciate a different set of eyes pointing out these issues which did seem confusing but I simply didn't notice them as the problems they were. -- Banjeboi 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the sidebar is still needed, now there is the more comprehensive footer navbox? One my screen, the pictured push the sidebar down so it overlapps with the portal box in see also, so i think it should go.Yob Mod 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave as we decided that all the articles actually listed on the sidebar should have the sidebar and the rest get the footer instead. -- Banjeboi 11:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears the substantive issues have been addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead doesn't summarize material from the "Criticism" section. I'm not a big fan of criticism sections; however, the lead should encapsulate important aspects of the subject. Fortunately, this is easily fixed. Other than that the article appears to meet GA criteria. The prose isn't crisp throughout but is decent enough. I'm still looking through the references but haven't noticed problems so far. Majoreditor (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added criticism material to the lede per this comment. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the lead.

The citations I've checked are fine. The only reference-related concern I have is the lack of page numbers. WP:CITE suggests that "you should if possible also cite the page number(s) of that passage." However, there is no explicit rule that page numbers must be included in order for the article to meet GA standards. The article will benefit if you can add them at some point, but you needn't do it for this GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaa! I'm such a knucklehead. I'll try to be more careful and add them in the future. -- Banjeboi 12:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep GA. Most problems are fixed, so is back to GA quality.Yob Mod 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is it possible to add material which describes when the term was first used, where and by whom? Majoreditor (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there's some brilliant book that just spells this out magnificently but I've no clue. I know GLBT preceeded LGBT and "gay and lesbian" was the biggee before that but when they all started? We may never know. I've added some bits, do they help? -- Banjeboi 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they're helpful additions. It will be best if we can add an in-line citation; I've done some light searching on Yahoo to find one, but have had limited success. Perhaps a note at the LGBT Wikiproject may help?

In any case I think that this article meets GA standards. Any remaining minor issues can be sorted out on the article talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a note in the LGBT newsletter and see if that prompts anyone. -- Banjeboi 07:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above comments. Majoreditor (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]