Talk:LGBT and Wikipedia/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.

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

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only starting, and nowhere near GA.

LGBT is an acronym, and the meaning has to be spelled out on first usage (links are not enough), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. Same goes for LGBTIQ+ and any variants.
- I've updated the opening sentence but I'm not exactly sure how you'd prefer to see subsequent appearances of "LGBTQ/LGBTQ+". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is rarely done on pages about LGBTQ+ topics, as far as I'm aware. Why does the acronym need to be spelled out? This doesn't make a lick of sense. Historyday01 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Historyday01 Are you ok with how I updated the opening sentence? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, its fine. I just found their complaint about it not being spelled out to be a bit silly. Historyday01 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most paragraphs are incredibly short. Just 2 or 3 lines each, and sometimes that's including quotations.
- That's true, but that doesn't mean the article doesn't have value and isn't a good article.Historyday01 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure how/why this is problematic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Rachel Wexelbaum? Explain her significance before quoting her.
- Also, I'm not sure if praising of Wikipedia from an article located on a Wikipedia-related webpage isn't excessive navel-gazing.
  - I just updated about her in a recent edit. I also see no issue with her comment in favor of Wikipedia, as there are other comments in this page which are critical.Historyday01 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Abby Stein. As written, sounds like a random example.
- It isn't a "random example". Stein is a well-known transgender activist. I just noted that in a recent edit.Historyday01 (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The description of Croatian wikipedia is far too close to the way it is written at the source.
- That line has now been updated to "The Croatian Wikipedia has been criticized for advancing anti-LGBT propaganda and for other reasons."Historyday01 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do fascism and WWII concentration camps have to do with the topic of the article?
- I've removed "fascism, whitewashing World War II concentration camps, and anti-Serbian and" ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"At one point, the only active administrator of Amharic Wikipedia enforced the Ethiopian government's anti-LGBT laws on the wiki." But "Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws", and we can't blame someone for trying to make Wikipedia compliant with the laws of the country it will be mostly used, just because we do not like that law.
- This is a strange comment, honestly. The article cited says "In another instance, they described an admin on Ethiopian Wikipedia—the only active one at the time—enforcing the government’s anti-LGBT laws on the wiki itself" which links to a discussion on Wikimedia Meta (the decision was to impose a global ban on the user.Historyday01 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason to use 2 photos, instead of just 1?
- Is there a reason to use 1 photo, instead of 2? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The English Wikipedia's style guidelines on identity says to...". I'm not sure if "say" is the appropriate word. The MOS has rules, not simply statements.
- Replaced with "states editors should". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Vandalism" should link to Vandalism on Wikipedia.
- Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In August 2008, the article about Ina Fried, a transgender journalist for CNET, was caught in an edit war over which pronouns to use for her." And the first reference is... Ina Fried writing for CNET, talking about her Wikipedia article. Seriously? The second, Valleybag, was a blog, wasn't it?
- I'll field this one. From what I remember, it was VERY hard to find information about this, and I see no issue with citing Fried on the issue (since her page was vandalized). Valleywag is somewhat reliable, I suppose. In any case, I'll see if I can find more on this, and/or just remove the link to Valleybag.Historyday01 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: Removed the Valleybag article, as the archived version won't even load for me, and only found a short Gawker piece, which has questionable reliability. It has since been updated to "In August 2008, the article about Ina Fried, a transgender journalist for CNET, was caught in an edit war over which pronouns to use for her. She stated that Wikipedia did not have a stylebook on gender, unlike the Associated Press Stylebook, and said that while she found it "somewhat confusing" to see the gender changes on her page, she "found the debate interesting." She later added that it was a "reasonable compromise" to remove all pronouns in her biography entry."Historyday01 (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An open letter to Wikipedia? Seriously? Did someone reply to it, or did something about it? Was anyone noteworthy signing it?
- I would think that if "40 French public figures" signed it, then there are some noteworthy signators. But, I'll look into that and update it.Historyday01 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikimedia LGBT is a user group affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation.", referenced by the Wikimedia Foundation itself.
- I don't see why this citation would be an issue and would think that Wikimedia foundation would be the best source for it.Historyday01 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this source work? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero Thanks for reviewing. I am bummed to see this article failed without having a chance to resolve concerns. I think you can expect some editor feedback here, and I hope you will revisit so we can make this article as good as possible before we re-nominate. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I expect there will be some other comments here as well. Historyday01 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have been more clear. The main reason why I failed the article (and why I did so directly) is because the length of the paragraphs. Not just because of their small number of lines, but because the article lacks meaningful content. An article is a topic (in this case, the relation between Wikipedia and the LGBT), the sections are subtopics, and the paragraphs explain things to properly understand the topic or subtopic. In this article, basically all paragraphs just drop a piece of information and then simply move to the next one, without any development. Take for example: "In some cases, particular language editions of Wikipedia have slanted toward anti-LGBT content. The Croatian Wikipedia has been criticized for advancing anti-LGBT propaganda and for other reasons. In addition, only active administrator of Amharic Wikipedia, at one point, enforced the Ethiopian government's anti-LGBT laws on the wiki." Is that all? This leaves more unanswered questions than solid knowledge. What is "anti-LGBT content", exactly? Why do different language editions have different approaches to the topic, instead of a single one? Who criticized the Croatian Wikipedia? How did it advance anti-LGBT propaganda? Did someone do something about it, or is it still happening? Why does the Amharic Wikipedia have a single administrator? What do those Ethiopian laws tell to do? How do local laws affect the content and editing of Wikipedia articles? But don't answer me. The point is, re-read the article with the eyes of someone who knows little or even nothing about Wikipedia and the LGBT community, and consider, can it be understand? Does it properly inform the reader in a meaningful manner about the relation between the LGBT community and Wikipedia?

The rest is just accessory, but to clarify the acronym thing, the usual system is one used now: "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)" the first time, and then just LGBT in later uses. LGBTIQ+ is simply another acronym (even if related), so the same method must be used with it. This should be done at all articles that use those acronyms. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations has a list of exceptions, acronyms that are so well known that do not need to be spelled out, but LGBT is not among them. A point can be made that LGBT could be a well-known exception as well, but adding it would require a RFC that should be open for a time (and of course, an affirmative result is not guaranteed); right now, at the time of the review, it was not an exception so I requested to proceed accordingly. Cambalachero (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer, are you planning to renominate soon? I think the article is better. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk@Historyday01

Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.