User:Dev920/Drafts

LGBT Albums

 * Absurd Pop Song Romance
 * Being Out Rocks
 * Deflowered
 * Live at the Ambassadors
 * More Lovin' From Our Oven
 * Pile Up
 * The Essential Pansy Division
 * Total Entertainment!
 * Undressed (album)
 * Wish I'd Taken Pictures

Unrefenced LGBT BLPs

 * Abigail Garner
 * Alan Carr
 * Alexandre Frota
 * Alexis Arquette
 * Amy Ray
 * Angel Long
 * Annie Sprinkle
 * Antonio Pantojas
 * Belladonna (porn star)
 * Benjamin Cruz
 * Billy Merasty
 * Blair Boone
 * Bobby Blake
 * Brent Hawkes
 * Brian Rusch
 * Candace Gingrich
 * Chip Kidd
 * Chris Kanyon
 * Clodovil Hernandes
 * Cyndi Lauper
 * Dan Anderson (writer)
 * Daniel Davis
 * Daniel MacIvor
 * David Boothroyd
 * Debbie Harry
 * Dodie Bellamy
 * Dred Scott (porn star)
 * Elio Di Rupo
 * Emily Robison
 * Emma Donoghue
 * Erica Boyer
 * Fausto Fernós
 * Fay Presto
 * Felecia
 * Gerald Hannon
 * Gia Darling
 * Graham Norton
 * Hella von Sinnen
 * Holly Johnson
 * Hélène Cixous
 * James Getzlaff
 * James Kirkup
 * Janice Dickinson
 * Jody Bleyle
 * Joe Average
 * Johan Paulik
 * John Ashbery
 * John Craxton
 * John Galliano
 * Josie Maran
 * Judy Star
 * Julia Ann
 * Juliana Pegues
 * Julie K. Smith
 * Kerryn Phelps
 * Lauren Harries
 * Maia Lee
 * Maile Flanagan
 * Manfred Bruns
 * Marilyn Chambers
 * Mark Elliot (radio host)
 * Mary Kiani
 * Maya Keyes
 * Michael S. Piazza
 * Missy Higgins
 * Nathan Lane
 * Nomy Lamm
 * Orlando Jordan
 * Pai Hsien-yung
 * Patricia Araujo
 * Paul O'Grady
 * Paul Patrick
 * Paul Rutherford
 * Peter Mandelson
 * Racquel Darrian
 * Ramon Te Wake
 * Rebecca Loos
 * Reg Livermore
 * Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres
 * Rikki Beadle-Blair
 * Rob Astbury
 * Robert Dover (equestrian)
 * Roman Heart (porn star)
 * Sarah Schulman
 * Simon Russell Beale
 * Steve Levicoff
 * Suze Randall
 * Ted Matthews
 * Tevin Campbell
 * Theresa Sparks
 * Tom G. Palmer
 * Tom Robinson
 * Tony Malone (designer)
 * Vicki Randle
 * Witi Ihimaera

GA and beyond
For GA and above, articles are assessed by an independant reviewer, and articles have to be good. Some points that many articles fall down on:


 * Fair use rationale for images - If you do not have a free image for your article, you may use one under Fair Use, but you must include a Fair Use rationale on the Image included. See this image of James Baker for an example.
 * Lack of inline citations - Appropriate levels of references are generally at least one per paragraph, and largely one for every fact. This is the biggest problem most articles are failing at GA, FA, and even FARC. Make sure it doesn't happen to you by footnoting everything you add.
 * Crap lead section - Your lead section must summarise everything in the article. It is usually best to complete the rest of your article before tacking a lead section. For a personality, two to three paragraphs is good, the first paragraph giving full name, birthdate, profession, and any other distinctive details, like awards won. Your second should summarise their profession and career, and your third should cover anything else notable about them. Angelina Jolie is a good example of this.
 * Internal issues - Whatever your method of referencing, be consistent in using it throughout your article. Similarly your spelling, either use American or Everyone else spelling all the way through. Wikilink all dates and years, and any useful or unusual words in the article (but only once).
 * Prose - Writing good prose is a knack, and takes a while to acquire. Make sure your writing flows nicely, makes coherent sense, and does not mislead the reader.
 * Trivia and rumours - Jake Gyllenhaal once peed on the leg of someone who was stung by a jellyfish while working as a lifeguard. You will not find this in his article. While this is fascinating to a Jake fan, this sort of useless information is not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Leave it to the fansites for that kind of trivia. Likewise, do not mention unverifiable rumours, unless they are in themselves notable - the rumours of Tom Cruise's homosexuality, which have led to numerous mentions in newspapers, rampant litigation and even an episode of South Park, are one example.

Some things you can do:


 * Peer review is your friend. Use it, specify what you're aiming for, GA or FA, and act promptly on any comments. Take any criticism and either improve the article or explain why you don't think the criticism is valid. This will save you having to deal so much with the considerably ruder FA reviewers.
 * Google is your friend. If you are writing an article on a media personality, Google them and wade through at least the first ten pages looking for reliable sources, such as newspaper articles or scholarly essays.
 * Copy editors are your friends. The are a large number of confessed copyeditors at the LGBT WikiProject, drop a note on the talkpage and one or more will probably help you out.

Above all, never give up. An article usually never reaches FA without the utter singlemindedness of one or two editors who drive the whole process and don't stop until the article passes muster. If your article is rejected, address all the critical points you can and resubmit it. Contact the editors concerned on their talkpages and ask for more specific pointers, or even a copyedit. Ask for feedback from anyone and everyone who will look at your article. Keep the circle of feedback and improvement churning and one day, your article will be an FA.

...a film article
If you are newly creating an article, don't forget to tag it with the LGBT Project banner, and add it to the Project's New LGBT articles section.

For the basics of a film article, you are highly recommended to follow WikiProject Films/Style guidelines as much as you can. Some other pointers for more indepth articles:


 * It is always a good idea to have the film to hand. This will make it easier to deal with disputes over the plot of the film. Make sure you have seen the commentary (if there's any) and any "Making of" featurettes. Both will be extremely useful in writing about the background and production of the film.
 * Be very careful about NPOV if you particularly liked the film. It is very easy for a film that was slammed by critics and lost money that you think is the most amazing film ever made to suddenly acquire rave reviews on a par with The Shawshank Redemption. You will not make FA if you do this. Save it for IMDB.
 * Use reviews to the best effect. Many critical reviews now also come with interesting information about the film that you can use in other parts of the article. Read all of the reviews provided on Rotten Tomatoes, or search Google and use the first ten pages.
 * Don't let people who think your film was crap get you down. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not judge films on their artistic merit or lack thereof.
 * Make sure all non-free images you have included have fair use rationales. See this image of Latter Days for an example.
 * Once you think you have exhaustively covered every piece of notable information, Peer review it. If you think it's GA or FA quality, mention this on the peer review, as reviewers will take a much closer look if you announce you will shortly be running for either. Heed all advice and fix everything you can, and explain politely why not, where you can't or won't improve things. Above all, reply promptly.