Talk:Sexual Preference (book)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 09:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'll give this one a read through and provide some comments if there are no objections? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a little concerned about the use of images here. I'm not sure that we can legitimately use non-free images of book covers other than the cover of Sexual Preference itself. Certainly, this would be an issue that would crop up at FAC, but it may raise eyebrows here too. They do look nice in the article, but i'd be rid of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we have more 'generic' images, perhaps? Not essential, but it would aesthetically liven up the article somewhat. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about some 'quoteboxes' at the side in various places? By no means essential for GAN, but I think it livens the visual appearance of the article up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bell et al.′s". I've never seen the "et al" used in an article here before. It certainly won't prevent it from passing GAN, but I do wonder if listing the three author names might be more appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Bibliography, Johnson's Strong Mothers, Weak Wives lacks any location data. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The formatting of the entries in "Journal" seems a little funny to me. In the "journal" citation template, "title" is usually for the title of the article, not the title of the journal itself. I would recommending sorting that out (see for instance the formatting of the journals in my recent FA, Mortimer Wheeler, to understand what I am getting at). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When mentioning things like "Oedipal complexes", make sure that you have a link there, because many readers won't be familiar with these specialist terms. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "their data were not obtained" - Shouldn't this be "was not obtained"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see hat you have tended to only have citations at the very end of paragraphs. I would recommend that you include citations within the paragraphs too, particularly after any direct quotations. Otherwise we have a situation where a reader may think that only the final sentence of a paragraph is actually cited, and that the rest of the paragraph is not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the lede, it is probably worth specifying the nationality of the authors, the country of publication etc. I'm guessing that this was an entirely U.S.-based project, but this isn't actually spelled out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "Gay activist" is used a few times in the article, but might "gay rights activist" be more appropriate? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

All in all, I will be pretty happy to pass this as a Good Article. It is well written, well sourced, and well researched. It is of course a little dense, in particular when it comes to the reception of the book, and this will put some readers off, but that is certainly no barrier to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the article, Midnightblueowl.


 * Regarding images: the images of other books (eg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women and Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography) can be removed without difficulty. You may be right to question whether "we can legitimately use non-free images of book covers other than the cover of Sexual Preference itself". Although this is an article where it is particularly difficult to find appropriate images other than the image of the book itself and its statistical appendix, it may be possible to find public domain images of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey and use them in the article, with captions describing how their ideas relate to those in Sexual Preference. This would be reasonable, inasmuch as they are both discussed in the text. The image of Freud currently used in the Freud article is certainly public domain; the image of Kinsey currently used in the Kinsey article appears to be public domain as well.


 * Regarding the use of "Bell et al" rather than "Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith" - I think that in an article as long as this one, the repeated use of "Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith", over and over again, would be absolutely maddening. "Bell et al" is a lot shorter, and thus seems preferable to me, especially given how long the article already is. I wouldn't want to do anything to make it needlessly longer.


 * "In the Bibliography, Johnson's Strong Mothers, Weak Wives lacks any location data." I have now fixed that; thanks for pointing this out.


 * Regarding the formatting of the entries in "Journal", thank you for drawing attention to this and for directing me to Mortimer Wheeler for an example of how it should be formatted. I will attempt to fix this issue in the near future. Fixed.


 * Regarding the linking of technical terms, I have linked Oedipal to Oedipus complex, as per your suggestion. If there is other technical terminology that needs linking and which I have overlooked, I will link it, if you could point it out.


 * Regarding, "their data were not obtained", I have now changed this to "their data was not obtained", as per your suggestion.


 * Your point about citations is reasonable. I will add citations after most, at least, of the direct quotations within the next couple of days. I should note, however, that there are at least a few cases (eg, cases where the direct quotation is from a relatively short review of the book that took up a single page or less) where this may be either awkward, since it would involve citing the same page multiple times, or unnecessary.


 * The lead could be modified as you suggest, to mention the nationality of the book's authors and other details. However, I would note that the opening sentence - "Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women is a 1981 book about the development of sexual orientation by psychologist Alan P. Bell and sociologists Martin S. Weinberg and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, in which Bell et al. reevaluate what were then widely held ideas about the origins of heterosexuality and homosexuality, sometimes rejecting entirely the factors proposed as causes, and in other cases concluding that their importance had been exaggerated" - is already quite long and involved, and adding "American" before "psychologist", and again before "sociologists", would make it even more so. I think it might be both easier and more appropriate to fit some added detail into the shorter second sentence ("The study was a publication of the Institute for Sex Research, and was produced with the help of the National Institute of Mental Health"). The best way of including nationality may be to explain which nation (the United States) the National Institute of Mental Health is associated with.


 * I have changed "gay activist" to "gay rights activist", as per your suggestion.


 * Regarding the reception section: yes, I realize that it is long and rather complicated, and thus possibly too much for some readers, but this is inevitable given the nature of the subject. The book has been the subject of some controversy, the controversy deals with many very complicated issues, and it is necessary to go into some detail in order to adequately explain these issues to readers. I have exercised some caution and discretion in what I added to the reception section. There was plenty of material that I could have used, but ultimately decided against, for various reasons. I have also tried to condense and simplify the material as much as reasonably possible.


 * At this stage I have done very nearly everything I think I can to improve the article. I have adopted your suggestions whenever possible. There is little more I can do, Midnightblueowl, unless you wish to make further or more specific suggestions (eg, if you think I should remove the image of Sexual Preference′s Statistical Appendix, I'd certainly do that). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "Statistical Appendix" image is necessary, so it might be best to be rid of that but otherwise I am certainly happy to pass this article as a GA. If you wish to take it further, I would definitely suggest Peer Review, with a particular eye to trimming down the "Reception" section. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)