Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GayFest/archive1

GayFest
Self-nom: I've worked on this article since June 2006, and I believe it currently offers comprehensive information about all three GayFest events that have been held. Even though not as long as other FACs, I have included all possible information about this event without going into trivial details. I have consulted numerous media sources, from different points of view, and the well-referenced article hence offers balance about an event that has been somewhat controversial. Ronline ✉ 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - Comprehensiveness. Who organized it?  Why?  What about news coverage?  It could also use some more background information.  Furthermore, while the article mentions (too briefly, in my estimation) the slogan and purpose of each of the conventions, it never follows up with the actual impact had, if any.  I'm sure that an event for a controversial topic has more to say than just this... Fieari 17:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clear from the article (mentioned multiple times) that the GayFest is/was organised by ACCEPT, with the support of other organisations, which are also named. The reaction of various groups, including the media, is also given, including quotations, etc. As to the impact of each parade, the fact is that the immediate impact was quite negligible (like most gay pride events, actually). Other than a few comments from political parties about same sex marriage (which I have now added), the impact of the parade was mainly just to do with raising public awareness. In 2004 and 2005, there was no substantial public debate after or during the parade, it was only in 2006 that more attention was given to same-sex marriage (and I have now included this). I am wary, however, of duplicating information found in Same-sex marriage in Romania.


 * In fact, the point of the GayFest isn't so much to fulfill a clear political aim in each event, but rather to raise awareness and to express gay pride (like most LGBT pride events in the world). As to background information, I would like to include more information about the pre-2004 context of gay rights in Romania (since before 2001, Article 200 was in force, banning gay prides). But, where would such information be placed? At the end of the article or at the start? Thanks, [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd place it at the beginning, under the header "Background". Could be useful context for understanding what follows. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I dread saying it, as it would require restructuring, but with each of the large sections dealing with individual annual events, this article would require substantial expansion every year, forever (hoping, of course, that Wikipedia and the human race last a long time). I'm wondering if the main text should be moved to a History of GayFest with this one left to cover common themes among each event.  Also, why reverse chronological order? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed new information would have to be added every year. I think there will be people prepared, myself included, to do that. I have reversed the order, so that 2004 is first and 2006 last, so that we can have a Background section. I initially favoured the reverse chronological order because it made sure that the most recent event was read first (particularly since the 2006 section was the longest). I have also added a new Background section, which talks about the pre-GayFest context in Romania. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's good, but I don't think it's yet enough of a standout to be featured. Great picture, by the way. More on press coverage (especially domestic coverage) would be good; I imagine that it has annually been the occasion of quite a bit of editorializing. I'd also perhaps be more specific on the slogans of the counter-demonstrators. (I think for now the year-by-year approach is fine, but I suspect that 2-3 years from now we'll want to revisit that. But that's a long way away.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)