Talk:Lesbian/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead, "As homosexuals, they face discrimination and similar responses to homosexuality from their families, friends, and other people, that unifies them." is awkward. The last clause just kind of hangs out on the end...
 * First paragraph, Construction of lesbian identity section, "Westernization carried with it more independence for women, including clothing, which at times meant pants." is another awkward sentence with an odd last clause.
 * Third paragraph, Second wave feminism section, "DOB founders Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon similarly relegated the genital component by defining lesbian". I'm not sure what you mean by "genital component".
 * Second paragraph, Female husbands section, "Reports of clergymen with lax standards who performed weddings—though wrote their suspicions about one member of the wedding party—continued to appear for the next century." The middle clause is awkwardly worded.
 * Last paragraph, Film section, "In the 1960s, Barbara Hammer began making underground experimental lesbian-themed films, notably Superdyke (1975) and Nitrate Kisses (1992)." It says "In the 1960's" but then gives two films that weren't made in the 60's. Please reword...
 * First paragraph, Television section, "Not until the 1960s was homosexuality discussed, from local talk shows that invited panel experts to discuss the problems of gay men in society." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say...
 * First paragraph, Family and politics section, "Sociologists point to the learned roles of women in gender role socialization to place high priority on commitment that doubles in lesbian relationships." is oddly phrased.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * Overall a very nice article, especially on what could potentially be a very controversial article. All I found were a few prose issues, so I am placing the review on hold to give time for these to be resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a very nice article, especially on what could potentially be a very controversial article. All I found were a few prose issues, so I am placing the review on hold to give time for these to be resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall a very nice article, especially on what could potentially be a very controversial article. All I found were a few prose issues, so I am placing the review on hold to give time for these to be resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Dana boomer. I fixed the above sentences, I hope to your satisfaction. If they need further clarification, I'll be happy to give it. Whatever thoughts are in my head should be clearly communicated. Let me know if you just don't know what's trying to be said here. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm passing this article to GA status. I hope you will take this article to FAC - it is a subject that deserves an FA. Also, I liked your comment "Whatever thoughts are in my head should be clearly communicated." I sometimes have issues with this - my boyfriend has grown quite used to my statement of "well, it made sense to ME" after I say something odd... :) Very nice work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment
In the television section, I am unclear what you mean by "Though television did not begin to use homosexual characters until the late 1980s..." There were LGBT characters on TV well before the late 1980s. Few were recurring characters but there were some. Otto4711 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After Ellen says much the same thing (as a less scholarly cite). I interpreted that as "LGBT characters in films began to appear more regularly only in the 1980s.", similarly with 1990s for TV and 1970 for literature. So rewriting this to add a "regularly" or somesuch might be better (especially with lesbian villains etc appearing earlier)YobMod 11:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the 1950s thing, Otto. There will inevitably be a few facts that I overlooked in writing this and have to be pointed out to me. Only then do I remember I was supposed to go back and check that... I included "recurring" in that sentence. I hope it's clearer, and yeah, that's what I meant. Let me know if the section is unclear anywhere else, Otto and Yobmod. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)