Talk:Homosexuality/GA2

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Any criticism missing in the article, but for sure exist in real world. Think, that GA cannot be reached at all in this kind of thema/article.--DeeMusil (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article for Lesbian is a GA. There is a way to write this article with GA or FA quality in mind. Doing so would be an extensive job in time and effort, however. It does not appear to be a priority among the editors who watch and edit this article to do this for Homosexuality. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Following this notice at Cirt's talk page, I shall take over this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Fixed three and unlinked ubiquity as there is no Wikipedia article on that. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary instead? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: 1 repaired and 13 tagged. Some of these have been dead since before the article was delisted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are a number of stray sentences which need to be consolidated into paragraphs.
 * The third paragraph of Lesbian narratives and awareness of their sexual orientation is rather dense and could be broken up.
 * Otherwise well written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Thirteen dead links have been tagged, no Internet Archive substitutes found for these links.
 * Admittedly, many of these examples are inherently problematic because of applying the modern category of "homosexuality" to a time where none-such forms of identity existed. needs attribution.
 * There are a number of outstanding citation needed tags and I added some more.
 * Available sources check out.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I belive that this is broad and focussed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Fine
 * 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):
 * All appear to check out, tagged, licensed and captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, there have been no attempts to address these concerns, but there has been a certain maount of edit-warring so that is a belated quick fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, there have been no attempts to address these concerns, but there has been a certain maount of edit-warring so that is a belated quick fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)