Talk:Gay Power, Gay Politics/GA1

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

Great work on this article - it was a very interesting read. I have a few comments but I think it's a great candidate for GA status.


 * In the lead, you might get some questions for the phrase "flawed reportage" because it borders on POV. I don't have a solid suggestion for it, except maybe include specific criticism of the reporting style so it clearly shows the critics are making the judgment, not Wikipedia. Mull it over, anyway.
 * Removed the word "flawed" because I don't want to overload the lead with examples.


 * Under production, there is a lot of space between footnote 5 and 6. Adding another footnote, particularly after facts that could be challenged (they began questioning, or where one person was cut or good spots), would really help.
 * I added a quote from Sally Gearhart addressing the mistrust. I'm hoping to track down a quote from Del Martin but unfortunately I don't have the book it's in and Google cuts it off in a snippet view. I think though that the current addition addresses your concern.
 * Additional added re activists' suspicions. Otto4711 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Overview: "For someone of my generation, it sounds a bit preposterous. Political power for homosexuals?" This made me laugh out loud! Seriously, though, I'm not sure you need quotation marks around a large quote that is already in a cquote template.
 * I see you've already deleted the quotation marks. I don't know if the punctuation is required either so I don't care either way. If someone puts them back they put them back.


 * The majority of this article is the "Criticism" section. To make it more readable, I wonder if it this section could include subsections? Also in that section, it alludes to Paul Cameron's controversial views. What are they?
 * Broken into multiple sections. I would rather not get into Cameron's opinions; they can't be easily summarized in a sentence or two and any more than that would I think implicate GAC 3b.


 * References: Well done, all look like reliable sources (taken in good faith, anyway... I tend to prefer ink-and-paper sources over internet sites, so my kudos to you). One of them, however, lists "paperback edition", which I don't think is necessary; none of the others are qualified like that. Besides, the ISBN should cover the edition.
 * Deleted. I wasn't sure if the ISBN differentiated hardcover from paperback (for that matter I don't even know if the book was even issued in hardcover).

Overall, great work. Let me know what you think of these suggestions! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this covers your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks for the review. Otto4711 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The only other things I can mention are that the new subheading in Criticism is really long and it might be nice to cut it shorter. I'm also not sure about redlinks; different editors have different views, but I won't be one of the those who have a problem with them.

Overall, this a great article, and an easy pass. Congratulations! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)