Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conversion therapy/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Conversion therapy
Article is extensively sourced and covers all major aspects of this topic. For what it's worth, I've had a scientist who is an expert in the field review the article and it was well received. It has been GA class for some time, and has undergone MANY improvements since then. Fireplace 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty good, but I have a few nitpicks I'd like to see taken care of before I support:
 * NARTH should be named in full before it is referred by its abbreviated form (even if the abbreviation is common in the U.S., it is virtually unknown outside them)
 * ✅ Fireplace 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * APsaA and APA are seriously overlinked. (and the article could use the APA abbreviation more often). At some point APsaA is inked twice in as many lines.
 * ✅ It is inconvenient that the standard abbreviation of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association is APA.  My solution was to use the abbreviation whenever the context or the footnote clarifies which one it is (e.g., only the Psychiatric  Association can modify the DSM, as they publish it); otherwise, I spell it out. Fireplace 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had not even spotted that difference, otherwise I might have been more careful with my recommendation. Circeus 23:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph in "Peer-reviewed research" needs a source(s).
 * ✅ Fireplace 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources need some fixing: dates (not access dates) given in ISO format needs bracket around them. Red links and links to stuff linked in the article itself should be removed.
 * Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for taking the time to comment! Fireplace 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Circeus 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Article is not very stable at the moment, and it appears that it might not stay stable after its promotion. Circeus 05:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment -- the lead mentions various US sources, studies, scientists, etc. While as a controversy the issue is centered on the United States, I feel that this may be an overly nationally biased way of introducing the article, as it frames the issue as an American issue and, moreover, the only relevant scientific studies as the American ones. Generalizing a bit more is not a problem in the lead as long as more specific facts appear in the body of the article. — Verrai 04:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does mention WHO and the Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders. Maybe that could be moved up further to the top.Joshuajohanson 04:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't seem to say in which countries this therapy is popular today, and where it has been used in the past but fallen out of use. Narayanese 06:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow reply. I've gathered some excellent sources on the status and history of conversion therapy outside the English-speaking world, and will include the information in the article tonight.  Fireplace 14:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Conversion therapy for international perspectives. Fireplace 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment before making any vote: The APA logo cannot be used in this article, since it fails FUC #8. I realize it's a tough subject to illustrate and in a long article you desperately want images to break up the text, but the fact is that the only justification for using the copyrighted logo of an organization outside of the article on that organization itself is when the logo in question is discussed specifically in the text. In plain language, it does not significantly enhance the article to have the image there, regardless of what the fair-use rationale at the image page asserts. Until it's gone or replaced by some sort of free image the article cannot be promoted. Daniel Case 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Ditto with this image, too. It's not necessary. Daniel Case 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ A while back I found some very politically incorrect (by today's standards) drawings used in an early 20th century journal article on conversion therapy.  I'll see if I can dig it up to fix the problem with too few images.  Fireplace 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, completely unformatted and incompletely formatted references, see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need publisher and title, author and publication date should be given when available, and all websources need a last accessdate.  Few of your medical sources have PMIDs (see WP:MEDMOS; this article should comply).  Cite needed tags and uncited text, example:  Mainstream gay rights organizations and some religious organizations opposing conversion therapies include the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, The Interfaith Alliance, New Ways Ministries and People for the American Way.  Neutrality tag on the article obviously disqualifies it for FA status.  The article is very listy and could be better prosified.  You might relist at peer review and prompt the Projects to contribute; you need MEDMOS input.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

--Garrondo 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree completely with SandyGeorgia and the comments she has left... I got lost while reading it due to all the information on list format.
 * I have also reviewed some of the titles of the bibliography and the following article "Zlotlow, Moses; Paganini, Albert E. (1959). "Autoerotic and Homoerotic Manifestations in Hospitalized Male Postlobotomy Patients". Psychiatric Quarterly 33: 492-97." seems to state the opposite to what it supposedly makes reference: in the wikipedia article is used to support that lobotomy was used to treat homosexuality but the title of the article seems to be talking about homosexuality tendencies as a consequence of lobotomy (Which on the other hand makes more sense with a frontal brain damage, since it sometimes produces hipersexuality)
 * The following reference "Max, Louis William (1935). "Breaking Up a Homosexual Fixation by the Condition Reaction Technique: A Case Study". Psychology Bulletin 32: 734. (the article describes the "success" of electroshock treatment when used at "intensities considerably higher than those usually employed on human subjects.")" has an explanation of the article. Not much sense in a reference section.
 * Same happens in "Smith, Glenn; Bartlett, Annie; King, Michael (January 2004). "Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s -- An oral history: the experience of patients". BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.37984.442419.EE. Retrieved on 2007-08-28. “Other forms of treatment were electroconvulsive therapy, discussion of the evils of homosexuality, desensitisation of an assumed phobia of the opposite sex, hypnosis, psychodrama, and abreaction. Dating skills were sometimes taught, and occasionally men were encouraged to find a prostitute or female friend with whom to try sexual intercourse. Many described the treatments as unsophisticated and un-erotic because of the clinical setting and images used: "The whole week was totally un-erotic. I don't think I could have had an erection for any reason that week because I didn't like being there."”


 * There's lots of good about this article, so I await the outcome in dealing with Sandy's objections. See a few inline queries I've left. Tony   (talk)  09:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Great, thanks for all the comments. I've added PMIDs where available; cleaned up the other reference formatting issues; dealt with fact templates; cited the text requested by Sandy; dealt with the neutrality tag; dealt with the three issues Garrondo raised; and dealt with the inline comments Tony left. Fireplace 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't responded to the complaint that the article is list-y. I'm doubtful that too much improvement can be made there -- there's already a lot of prose, and due to the fragmented nature of the field, it's probably impossible to compile a more unified story.  Fireplace 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.