Talk:Femboy/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Schminnte (talk · contribs) 01:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Frzzl, happy new year! I'll take this one and will be claiming this review for points in the WikiCup. Interesting subject matter :) Expect comments within the next few days. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 01:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Frzzl, I've added my comments. To help the article's further development, I've included some extra points as well that are not needed for GACR (these are marked "Non-GACR"). Feel free to action these or not: the review will be passed without any respect to them. Please respond to any comments by indenting your responses and adding your initial. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 23:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the speedy and in-depth review! I'll respond to them and make alterations sometime later today :D Frzzl talk; contribs 00:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! Not GAR relevant, just a quick note that your signature (I think) caused an issue with the GAN script updating the talk page. I've fixed this for now, but I'd assume it'll do it again next time there's an update. You might want to check out the associated talk page diffs to see what happened. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'm prepared to pass this now. Thank you for your quick replies and readiness to make alterations: it was nice working with you again. Congratulations on your new GA! All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 20:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the speedy and in-depth review! I'll respond to them and make alterations sometime later today :D Frzzl talk; contribs 00:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
This is a bit of a gut feeling, but I think it makes more sense to have §Attributes after §Usage. I think this is an "important stuff first" scenario, like defining the term first - S- Done - F
Remove Sissy and Effeminacy from see also per MOS:NOTSEEALSO - S- taken out - F
Words as words should be in italics, not quotes (MOS:WAW). This applies to quite a lot of the text (e.g. "Femboy also spelled femboi"). An italic title will also be needed. - S- Done, italic title added. To confirm, italics when I'm referring to the term itself, no italics when I'm using it as a noun? - F
- Yes, so things like "Femboy culture" and "Femboy aesthetic" are fine with no italics - S
- Done, italic title added. To confirm, italics when I'm referring to the term itself, no italics when I'm using it as a noun? - F
Per MOS:ORDER, put the engvar template below the hatnote - S- Switched - F
Not sure if the two sentences of §Etymology deserve a level 2 heading. Thoughts on merging with §Usage under a combined heading? - S- Merged. I've put the subheading for the rest of it as "Definitions"; this could be "Definition"? - F
- I think the plural is more representative as there are multiple dictionary definitions discussed - S
- Merged. I've put the subheading for the rest of it as "Definitions"; this could be "Definition"? - F
I think "criticised as an expression of hegemonic masculinity" in the lede qualifies as material likely to be challenged per MOS:LEDECITE and should have a cite in both cases - S- Removed - F
- General copyedits:
- §Lede
in traditionally feminine behaviours
: "with" traditionally feminine behaviours? - SThe term originated in the 1990s as a slur [...] where trends such as "#femboyfriday" have received attention.
Recommend split to help flow, maybe something like "...1990s as a slur. It has since spread, popularised through internet forums and social media like TikTok, where trends such as "#femboyfriday" have received attention." - S- Replaced, this is much better. - F
If we are linking non-binary, I feel transgender should be linked too - Ssubmissive role could be linked to Gay sex roles#Bottom - S- Linked x2 - F
- §Etymology
Fem wikilink should be in the first occurrence - San abbreviation - S- Corrected x2 - F
I feel a merge could be pulled off between the first two sentences (e.g. "The term femboy originated in the 1990s and is a compound from the words fem (an abbreviation of feminine and femme) and boy) - S- Done, and I've bundled the citations to look cleaner. - F
- §Attributes
link 4chan - Slink HRT to Transgender hormone therapy - Ssuch as the use of hair dye and jewellery - S"The paper found that that": mistaken duplicate? - S- In my mind near perfect should be hyphenated - S
- Ignore this, my eyes must've glanced over the quote marks - S
Ditto above with "knee high" - S"traditional medical practise": In BrEng, this should be practice for the noun - S- All done - F
- §Usage
Repeat link for non-binary would be good - SNon-GACR: Dictionary.com should be in italics per MOS:WEBITALICS - SIf we are linking gender identity again, why not link sexual orientation - S- All done - F
- §Presence
After the term was appropriated on the Internet, femboy communities began – by 2018, the term femboy was found almost exclusively on 4chan, especially on the /lgbt/ forum – the term has become popular on platforms such as Reddit and TikTok.
: this construction strikes me as odd. I feel like removing the dashes for periods would help. Mock up: "After the term was appropriated on the Internet, femboy communities began forming. Around 2018, the term femboy was found almost exclusively on 4chan, especially on the /lgbt/ forum. It later became popular on platforms such as Reddit and TikTok." - S- Done, have swapped the present participle for a past one. - F
Non-GACR: I'm not sure about quoting subreddit names. Existing articles like r/science and r/place use no quotes. MOS:MINORWORK has no mention of internet sites, so I'm inclined to remove quotes unless there's another reason. This would also make it consistent with the unquoted /lgbt/ - SWondering why hashtag is linked. If its to be kept, it should be moved forward anyway - S- Done x2 - F
- §Reception
"has been praised for "breaking traditional norms of masculinity" and has been" remove has been repeat - S- Done - F
"Wearing a skirt as a famous straight cisgender man does next to nothing for the conversation surrounding gender fluidity. If anything, it emphasises the all-encompassing maleness." Could the quote be introduced before the colon? - S- It could be, but that paragraph is like 70% quotations - would it be better to stick it in a quote box by the side? - F
- It should probably remain in text to avoid giving special treatment to one viewpoint, I'm just worried that too a reader it could be seen as a continuation of Lee's quote or a completely different quote - S
- Shifted it around a bit, few more square brackets in there now haha - F
- It should probably remain in text to avoid giving special treatment to one viewpoint, I'm just worried that too a reader it could be seen as a continuation of Lee's quote or a completely different quote - S
- It could be, but that paragraph is like 70% quotations - would it be better to stick it in a quote box by the side? - F
- "called the "effeminisation" of society as an": as is not needed - S
- Done - F
"The alt-right have viewed the emergence of femboys a result" sounds a bit odd. Something like "The alt-right has viewed the emergence of femboys to be a result" flows better in my opinion - S- That sounds a little strange to me too; I've changed it to "deemed the emergence a..." - F
- §Lede
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, but is (Lightning 2021) a reliable source per WP:DISSERTATION? If its been cited in other literature it should be fine - S- Annoyingly didn't find any citations, so I've removed it. - F
Non-GACR: I would love to see direct page numbers for journals - SNon-GACR: several refs are missing date and author - S- To the above two: I've added authors where they're available. Unfortunately since several of the journals I've used seem to be online only, the Foster & Baker and the Vaught simply have no numbers listed. - F
I can't see anything on Into: what makes this reliable? - S- My bad, also gone. - F
- Earwigs shows nothing but quotes, so a broad pass for copyvios - S
- Spotchecking six citations at random:
- Vytniorgu (2023): pass for verifiability and copyvio - S
Foster and Baker (2022)d: fail for verifiability as it mentions nothing about these quotes - S- Can I check which quotes you're talking about? If the ones in the § Reception, you're correct, I mixed up two quotes I was going to use, it's now fixed. If the ones in § Attributes, no, they're definitely there. I should note your previous point about hyphenating "near perfect" hasn't been done yet, because it's not hyphenated in the original. If we hyphenate it, is there some sort of "altered" tag I need to add? - F
- Near perfect was my mistake, its fine to leave I think. The reception quotes were what I was meaning ("d" meaning the fourth cite in the reviewed version), that looks fine now - S
- Can I check which quotes you're talking about? If the ones in the § Reception, you're correct, I mixed up two quotes I was going to use, it's now fixed. If the ones in § Attributes, no, they're definitely there. I should note your previous point about hyphenating "near perfect" hasn't been done yet, because it's not hyphenated in the original. If we hyphenate it, is there some sort of "altered" tag I need to add? - F
- En, En and Griffiths (2013)a: pass for both verifiability and copyvio - S
- del Campo (2023): pass for both verifiability and copyvio - S
- Tun (2023): pass for verifiability, slight fail for copyvio.
There is close paraphrasing in "femboy outfits were encouraged to attract media attention", which glosses "People also encouraged the adoption of femboy outfits to attract media attention" too closely - S- changed to "used to gain exposure" - F
- New Socialist (2018)b: is a fail for verifiability. The quote is "By 2018, this connection appears to have resolved with the /lgbt/ board’s users being predominantly transgender women.", which doesn't say anything about femboys being being found almost exclusively on 4chan - S
- perhaps "almost exclusively" is too strong, but Gleeson does write
‘Femboy’ is one term with which some /lgbt/ users refer to themselves as, and compared to repression seems like a relatively happy path. Often but not always assisted by HRT, this identifier is an ambiguous one which seems to be found rarely outside of 4Chan. Previously, the Femboy has been little heard of even across the rest of the internet,
, so I'm not too far off. Do you still need me to change it? - F- No need to change at all, I somehow missed this quote! Sorry for that - S
- perhaps "almost exclusively" is too strong, but Gleeson does write
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Article is sized appropriately, covering major viewpoints and aspects. It stays focussed on the subject of femboys throughout, with good use of summary style - S
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Good job balancing viewpoints in this contentious subject. Significant viewpoints, both positive and negative, are represented in the reception section, and neutral language is used throughout. Fringe beliefs are included, but clearly labelled to avoid a false balance. - S
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- The recent history of this page was originally setting off alarm bells, but on further inspection it mostly seems to be reverted vandalism. I wouldn't say that the remaining constructive edits are enough to call this unstable - S
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- File:Cavi.jpg: Licensed correctly with a VRT ticket. Caption seems fine - S
- File:Femboy flag.svg: PD tagged correctly as below the TOO. Requirements for unofficial flag use in articles are met as this is discussed in sources.
Nitpicking here, but I think the caption should say "A proposed femboy pride flag" or similar since this is one of many designs. Since there are multiple unofficial flags, we shouldn't label this the unofficial flag? - S- Fixed - F
- File:Femboy-UK.ogg is appropriately licensed :) - S
- Non-GACR: Suggest adding alt text for accessibility - S
- Non-GACR: Per MOS:IMGSIZE remove fixed px sizes - S
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall: An interesting and well-balanced article. A few problems to fix in GACR1&2, but still manageable - S
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.