Talk:Save Our Children/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 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):
 * 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:
 * Looks great! I'm not an expert on images though, and you have a lot of fair use images, so I'm going to ask for a second opinion in that regard. \ / (⁂) 08:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Looks great! I'm not an expert on images though, and you have a lot of fair use images, so I'm going to ask for a second opinion in that regard. \ / (⁂) 08:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I'm not an expert on images though, and you have a lot of fair use images, so I'm going to ask for a second opinion in that regard. \ / (⁂) 08:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted. My understanding of fair use images is also not at an expert level. I was very conscientious for that reason to justify the images in the article, in the text, captions, and the image summaries. Let me know. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur that the images are a bit numerous. The donor card in particular does not IMHO add much value to the article and would be the least likely of any of the images to survive a challenge. The captions are also a bit long for each image. I understand what you're doing with that level of detail but I believe they could be trimmed and tightened while still conveying the same information. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Otto. My understanding of the dispute here is that there is a question of Fair Use images. There are three FU images: Image:Advocate Cover April 20 1977.jpg, Image:Newsweek Cover June 6 1977.jpg, Image:Anita Bryant Pie October 14 1977.jpg. A fourth, Image:Anita Bryant Sucks Oranges button.jpg is public domain, and I have to change that. The images of the brochure and donor card are public domain. I think what I'm waiting for is another voice on the ruling of the magazine covers in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

These are just quick, random checks. Will be more thorough, if needed.
 * Second opinion - quick note
 * Incorrect punctuation:
 * "The ordinance condones immorality and discriminates against my children's rights to grow up in a healthy, decent community".


 * Subjective use of language:
 * eg 'Bryant resented the media depiction of her as hateful, saying that her inspiration came "out of love—not only love for God's commandment and His word, but love for my children and yours. Yes, and even love for all sinners—even homosexuals." '
 * Are use of strong words like "resented" and "hateful" justified here and NPOV? Seems like you are drawing conclusions that the quote does not support. Can you provide a reliable source using this wording?


 * Overly long captions are not balanced in content, but appear to be pushing a POV.


 * Undue weight:
 * "Violence" section - First para goes on and on about the attack, suit against Bryant etc. but ends only with the statement: "Bryant, Green, Mike Thompson and Save Our Children were dismissed from the suit in November 1977."
 * What happened to the suit then?


 * Subjective language - not encyclopedic:
 * eg "Several suicides were connected to the campaign, including a Cuban gay activist in Miami named Ovidio "Herbie" Ramos, who was stunned at the vehemence against homosexuals." - "stunned"?


 * eg. "When gay men tried in several desperate measures to follow established political channels to bring attention to a disease that afflicted the most cast out members of society" - "desperate"?


 * Images seem unbalanced and to concentrate on Anita Bryant and do not seem NPOV. Is the image "Anita Bryant Sucks Oranges" NPOV? Is the caption of this image reflective of the image content?: "Campaign material was distributed around the country, reflecting the personal role Anita Bryant played in the campaign."
 * Is this article really about Anita Bryant?
 * Are there no images that represent other side to balance the POV ones?


 * Clumsy wording - could be improved in style
 * eg. "The breakdown of the marriage he blames on the pressures put on Bryant, and blames gays and lesbians for his emotional devastation after the divorce:"


 * Unclear wording
 * eg. "She professed being most astonished that they ate each others' sperm, and equated the act with the immorality of destroying the Seed of Life. Bryant also claimed never to have heard of Alfred Kinsey's study that estimated..."
 * (dictionary.com: "profess" - to lay claim to, often insincerely; pretend to)
 * Are you saying she was not speaking truthfully?
 * If so, can you provide a reliable source saying she was being insincerely and merely claiming?


 * Novelistic rather than encyclopedic wording:
 * eg. "Bryant's star power and her extreme views began to seep into national news stories."
 * Is "seep" in this context an encyclopedic way of describing this?


 * Overall, the article does not seem neutral in content but appears to be taking sides and supporting a particular point of view.

These are my reactions to scanning the article. Also, article needs a good copy edit for wording, punctuation etc.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some responses. My sources are at home, and I am not. I had to return Fred Fejes' book to Interlibrary Loan, wouldn't you know, 30 minutes before you posted this opinion. So I went ahead and bought it. It will take a couple days to arrive. I have everything else.


 * Can you tell me what POV you think the article is promoting? By reading the talk page, I'm sure you came across my requests for others to give me their opinions on this. No one as yet has given me one, but it was a small sampling.


 * The issue of overlong captions has been addressed in the previous GA commentary. They are long because I'm justifying the use of the images. Since User:Elcobbola is kind of around, I think I'm going to ask him to weigh in on the issue not only of Non Free images, but their justification in the article and captioning.


 * I'm not sure how the inclusion of Image:Anita Bryant Sucks Oranges button.jpg is NPOV. Can you expand on that? While the article is not about Bryant alone, it makes a well-cited case that she was the public face of the campaign, and her involvement in it propelled the issue to the national consciousness. People were wearing this button during the time, and it is cited in the article. I do have a bumper sticker that shows the counter view "There is No 'Human Right' to Corrupt Our Children", which I can include, but it reiterates what the brochure already shows. Another bumper sticker at the time read "Kill a Queer for Christ" but I thought that was over the top and it was not condoned by Save Our Children at any rate.


 * Per several definitions of profess: to declare openly; announce or affirm; avow or acknowledge, or to make a profession, avowal, or declaration. That is the definition intended.


 * I double-checked the article in NYT and the punctuation in "The ordinance condones immorality and discriminates against my children's rights to grow up in a healthy, decent community". is the same as the source.


 * Per Bob Green blaming gays: My faith has increased and I think much of that was accomplished by the trauma I suffered and having to reach out to God. For a couple of years I was really devastated," he said. "Blame gay people? I do. Their stated goal was to put [Bryant] out of business and destroy her career. And that's what they did. It's unfair. but I changed the wording of the sentence.


 * I've changed some wording. I'll look at the others when I get hold of my sources tonight or tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On Bryant "resented the media depiction of her as hateful". I attributed to Fejes. My memory remembers I paraphrased. To work around that until I can get the copy I just purchased, Bryant's autobiography from 1977 says "The media misquoted me, saying I called homosexuals garbage. That was not what I said..." "Criticism from the media was an eye-opener for me. We were quoted and misquoted time after time...The headline in the paper read: ANITA BRYANT CALLS HOMOSEXUALS MURDERERS!"..."There were all kinds of lies and distortions.." (p. 27) On being the brunt of Johnny Carson monologues and a premiere performance of Laugh-In, "By this time in the campaign, it had become obvious to me that very few people in the entertainment industry are willing to search for, and stand up and speak out on, the side of decency." (p. 36) What she said on the Phil Donahue Show: "The hardest thing to do is to convince people I don't hate homosexuals. I pray for them. We would like to help homosexuals..." (p. 67)


 * On Ovidio "Herbie" Ramos being stunned, I think understates his reaction. Ramos and Gomez basically formed a Cuban arm of the Dade County Coalition for the Humanistic Rights of Gays. It was the first time Cuban homosexuals had made their presence known in Miami. The issue of homosexuality was more about machismo in Cuban culture than it was about theology. It was common practice for Cuban politicians to call opponents maricon. The Cuban branch of Save Our Children flatly refused to go on the air with Ramos and Gomez, so they recorded a statement. Call after call came in degrading the weeks-old political outreach to the gay Cuban community. That night Ramos swallowed Valium and whiskey, but the attempt did not work until a few days later when he shot himself. (Young, 53-54)(Rich, et al)

3rd opinion
Just had a quick check through, and noticed:
 * A peer review is still open, and should be closed.
 * Biblical is capitalised in the middle of the sentence. According to wiktionary, this is not typical. Double check: it happens more than once.
 * "The defeat of the ordinance encouraged groups in other cities that had passed non-discrimination ordinances to attempt to overturn theirs." The that confused me for a second, as to whether it was the groups or the cities. Can it be changed?
 * "...sharing many of the same campaign strategies that were used in Miami: connecting homosexuality to child molestation." Many of the strategies means the child molestation link was only one of them? The colon makes it seem like this was the only one - needs a "such as" or "in particular" type linkage.
 * "Northwest Baptist Church announced it from the pulpit, concerning one of its members, Anita Bryant, a 36-year-old celebrity singer." Can this be split or recast - my first read through had me thinking that the anouncment concerned Bryant as in being about her, rather than making her feel concern.

I didn't go through with a fine-tooth comb, but overall i think this article meets the GA criteria. Bryant does stick out, but this seems to reflect the sources, who were obviously interested in her as a celebrity face. Showing the badge for example, would only be NPOV or undue weight if other badges had been made for the campaign, and this was used instead of those. But many other involved persons are discussed, so i think that NPOV is not a problem at this level. There is still room for improvment, but i think these are "heading for FA" improvments, rather than needed for GA. Yobmod (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the dubiously worded passages you highlighted. Thank you for the heads up on those. I have posted a question at WT:GAN regarding having a PR open while the article is nominated for GA. I know there is a specific rule for the for FAC, but I do not see a rule for that for GA nominations. I've asked the folks there to clarify. Thank you for your review. --Moni3 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pass
Thanks to Yobmod, Matisse for their help with the extra opinions. I'm going to pass the GA. Thanks for the patience Moni3, it has been a long review. \ / (⁂) 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)