Talk:Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Wexcan Talk  00:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Checklist - please see full details below.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some unreferenced statements. Broken links.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Balanced and neutral.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On Hold
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On Hold
 * On Hold

Review
Overall, a quite balanced and well-written article covering all major points. The only real issue is with references, and this is detailed below.

Decision
On hold. The issues with referencing should be easily fixed. Wexcan Talk  00:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional review
Additional reviewer stopping by:


 * I think the article still needs some serious work; I'm not sure I'd have held it if I was doing the initial review.
 * The lead section needs a serious copyedit.
 * The "Revision" section is strangely stubbish; it would make a lot more sense to turn it into a section about the general progress of the bill (from Bahati's initial introduction onwards)
 * The "Proponents" section isn't particularly well-written, and is a bit of a mishmash. There's been quite a lot written about the forces pushing for this legislation; there's a lot more that could be said, and what's there needs to be rewritten.
 * Under "Opponents", the "International response" subheading is a bit strange (is Amnesty not an international organisation?) and the "aid cut" sub-section is a bit arbitrary. It also doesn't seem particularly comprehensive; there's a lot of international leaders who have commented on this who aren't mentioned.
 * Under "Media attention", the only things that are mentioned is an article in The Guardian and The Rachel Maddow Show. It's not a section that makes much sense, unless you want to start listing mass quotageness from the world media. Rebecca (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Rebecca, thanks for your additions. I am inclined to agree with you having read the article through with your points in mind. I believe fairness would dictate keeping the article on hold for the seven day period anyway as fixing these issues isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Wexcan Talk  01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) Rebecca (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be quick-failed for GA. It can stand to be greatly improved. The prose is not cohesive, there are uncited and incongruous sentences, and it is repetitious. It is also obviously an ongoing current event.

Apart from the quick-fail criteria, sources should be, where possible, impartial. This is obviously getting an extraordinary amount of media attention, so unless a quote is covered by Pink News and not by another source, major media outlets should be used instead of Pink News or other gay-related sites. Citations should be consistently formatted. I will do some work in adding context and content, formatting work and such. But not until the event has passed and is not being updated daily (see the op ed in the Washington Post today), should it be nominated for GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs)


 * Per Moni, I'm failing this article as a GAN. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)