User:Djnavarre/sandbox

= Add to an Article: LGBT people in prison =

Canada
When Bill C-16, a bill that prevented discrimination based on gender identity, was passed in Canada, transgender prisoners were to be placed in facilities based on their gender identity. Additionally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to "look at" transgender prison assignment to ensure that these prisoners ended up in the facilities that matched their gender identity. Further, transgender prisoners are to be considered for sex-reassignment surgery if they are imprisoned for more than twelve continuous months.

= Choose Your Article: LGBT people in prison = Title: LGBT People in Prison

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_in_prison

For my article evaluation, I have decided to attempt to improve “LGBT People in Prison.” This article could mainly be improved by updating some of the information in a more neutral tone. Much of the article is seems argumentative rather than informative. Additionally, some of the sourcing is questionable or outdated. More sources or more updated sources would improve this article as LGBT rights and attitudes change drastically quickly so more current information will make the article more relevant. This will better reflect current policies and views on LGBT people across the world.

= Evaluate an Article: Homosexual agenda = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which article are you evaluating?
Homosexual agenda

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am evaluating the article about the “Homosexual Agenda” for my LGBTQ+ Politics and Policy class. I choose this article as it may relate to my topic for my final research project. Additionally, I have personal experience with this phrase being used to invalidate or dismiss my policy positions. I think this topic is important to understand as groups in America and all over the world have used this phrase to paint the LGBTQ community as something it is not. In my opinion, it leads to harmful stereotypes and stigmas against gay people. My overall impression of this article was that it was well written and easy to follow. It did an excellent job of supplying full context and explaining the circumstances of how and when this phrase is used.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section is overall well developed. The first sentence explains to the reader exactly what the notion of the homosexual agenda is. The rest of the paragraph is a little short and could use a couple more detail sentences. That being said, the lead section is very concise and does not display any unnecessary details, so the reader is able to quickly read and understand what the article entails. Further, the table of contents provides a guide to what is going to be in the article and does not include anything not present in the article.

Content

The content of the article is overall well established. It includes a solid overview of what the homosexual agenda refers to and how it is used by groups in the United States. Additionally, the article does a really good job of explaining the origins of the term as well as how it was popularized throughout the US. The content seems up to date as it provides sources that are relatively new or sources that refer to specific historical events. While this article does an excellent job of explaining what the homosexual agenda refers to in the US, it does not provide any details of what the context of this phrase means globally. While this phrase is predominately used in the US, it also has global implications so more information about the global usage of homosexual agenda would strengthen the article. In terms of equity, this article refers to the LGBT community which is a historically marginalized group. It is a good attempt to bridge the equity gap.

Tone and Balance

This article does a good job of keeping a strong, neutral tone while at the same time providing full context for how the phrase is used. There are not any terms that are heavily bias or lead the reader to believe any one position. In fact, it provides both how the term is used and responses to the use of the term providing multiple perspectives without over or underrepresenting any one side. It properly describes the communities that created the term, how they are using it, and what the responses have been to its use. It does not attempt to persuade and is rather an informative article. However, this article could benefit from a more global perspective.

Sources and References

This article is well-cited; there are no claims that are uncited. Some of the sources, however, come from publications that have a one-sided perspective or are used to make an argument. While these articles do provide factual information, they are not completely neutral which may decrease the credibly of some of the article. That being said, these sources give the perspective of the group that is being harmed by the phrase, so it makes sense that these articles do not take a neutral stance. Additionally, the article provides more than one perspective, so it does not take one side or try to promote an agenda (ironically). The links for the articles provide you to other sites and seem to be from a wide range of diverse authors including those who are a part of the LGBT community. Overall, the article could benefit from more peer reviewed articles and less news articles, but some are necessary to provide a range of perspectives.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing of this article is nearly perfect. It is clear, concise, and easy to read. At times, there are some longer sentences that could be cleaned for ease but overall does a good job of getting right to the point. There did not seem to be any grammar or spelling errors. Additionally, the article is well organized into proper sections.

Images and Media

The article has a couple of pictures. They are relevant to the article and show the perspective of the responses and origins of the “homosexual agenda.” They are well captioned with accurate descriptions and meaning that adds to the article. They seem to adhere to copyright regulations and are laid out in a way that makes sense and enhances the page.

Talk Page Discussion

The talk page has extensive discussion about the neutrality of the article. Many contributors want to add parts about this topic being a right-wing conspiracy or it being “disparaging” to the LGBT community. Some other authors believe that this would break neutrality and should find more sources or consensus before they include suggestions that this is a conspiracy or disparaging. This is a class-C article and is part of the WikiProjects LGBT studies, Conservatism, and United States. Also, it was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2019. In class, we have not talked about this specific notion, but I would assume we would see this as something disparaging and damaging to the LGBT movement.

Overall Impressions

The article is overall well written and organized but could use a global perspective and more sources from reliable, peer-reviewed sources. I would give this article a six out of ten as I believe improving the sourcing and adding additional perspectives would greatly strengthen the article. I think the discussions in the talk page about the neutrality are important and should be discussed further. This is strong but can be improved by having more perspectives.