Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA2

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

This article now meets the good article criteria. This article has undergone massive and agonizing work and improvement. Passionately disagreeing editors have clashed and finally come to a solution for this former good article which is now much better than it was when it was a good article before. The article is comprehensive, yet concise, every claim has a RS reference, the language is as simple as it can be for such a complex topic. A person who has no idea about the subject who reads this article will come away with a good summary understanding of the topic. I feel that aside from minor tweeks no major work is needed on this article in terms of adding any information that is missing, and not covered in some linked article or the other. I am sure this article is not perfect, I am sure it is at least a "Good Article" once more. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nominator keeps removing the NPOV tag. This article is full of misinformation, grammar and spelling issues, and NPOV violations. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Once these issues are resolved, this can be evaluated again. Jokestress (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Jokestress will put up an NPOV tag, then give a reason.  I address the reason assume that the matter is settled and remove the tag.  As for grammar and spelling that is somthing that can be corrected while this nomination is on hold... that's what putting a nomination on hold is for. In future I ask that Jokestress list all of her problems with the article so that they may be resolved in short order.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination due to the ongoing discussion over NPOV, as well as the presence of cleanup banners and fact tags in the article. I'm glad that discussion rather than edit warring seems to be the prevailing method of dispute resolution on this article, but until the discussion over NPOV is resolved, the article cannot become of GA status. Once this dispute has been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to comment on my talk page: This article was placed on hold by the nominator, which is not proper procedure - if a nominator feels that an article is not ready (hence holding off a review by a neutral editor) they should simply withdraw the article. Now, as for the COI of interested parties - that is an interesting fact, but one that makes the article more unstable, not less. Hfarmer, I'm not really sure what your point is about the cleanup banner. As I said before, nominators cannot place their own article on hold - if the article is not ready, they should withdraw it and renominate it later when the banners have been taken care of. In reality, the nominator should leave it to the reviewer to begin the review page as well, but this doesn't always happen and isn't a huge deal. A nominator putting their own article on hold is not a reason for other reviewers not to look at the article - it actually serves as a red flag to make potential reviewers look quite closely at the article to see why even the nominator considers the article unready for review. As I said before, please resolve the discussion on the talk page, resolve the need for the cleanup banner, make sure all parties are at least holding their peace if not actively happy with the article, and then feel free to renominate. Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look closely at your review. You cited as a problem with the article fact tags which were improperly placed inside a block quote, asking for citation of facts within the block quote.  The fact being that a citation was present for the whole block quote.  You cited an NPOV dispute but you did not consider the source of or content of the NPOV complaints at all. You cited a cleanup tag, but it does not seem that you looked at just what problems their actually were minor issues that can be fixed easily, and do not actually by themselves rise to the level of failng this as a good article (i.e. some spelling errors were pointed out. That's just about it.)  I don't think you took a close/in depth look at all.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hfarmer, I am not going to change my review. Let me make that clear. If the cleanup banner has been resolved to the satisfaction of all involved parties, then remove it. The NPOV dispute is current ongoing as of today. If one of the editors is biased, then so be it...all editors are biased to one extent or another, and it's the editor that says they're not biased that is probably the most biased of all. At least Jokestress has admitted their COI and is working to discuss the article through the talk page and not causing edit wars in the article itself. Give her time to respond to your latest questions, work through the dispute, then renominate. I've said that several times. Articles should not be nominated at GAN when there are ongoing content disputes. Work through it, then renom - Jokestress's COI aside, she seems to be quite interested in improving the article, and working through her objections rather than trying to push over the top of them to GA status would probably be beneficial. What's the rush? Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, please do not simply revert my edit. Another editor has pointed out the fact that a nominator should not place their own article on hold. The article can be renominated when it is ready - why not nominate it next week. I am removing your "on hold" tag from the GAN page... Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)