Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gender role/archive1

Gender role
Just read this. It's very well written, seems quite complete, and deserves recognition. Exploding Boy 05:52, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Minor objection - can you expand the lead section? &rarr;Raul654 05:54, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * What, the section above the ToC? I think it's a good intro -- succinct and easy to understand.  The concept is fully described in the body of the  article.  Isn't that how it should be?  Exploding Boy 06:04, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * According to the usual Wikipedia News style, the intro for an article that size would want to be about 2 paragraphs, and to summarise the main points of the rest of the article. Morwen - Talk 06:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: News style specifically says that articles don't have to follow that style. The main article on News style says:
 * The lead is the first sentence, or in special cases the first two sentences. The top-loading principle applies especially to leads, but the unreadability of long sentences constrains the size of the lead. . . . the goal is to articulate the most encompassing and interesting statement that a writer can make in one sentence, given the material he or she has to work with.
 * While a rule of thumb says the lead should answer most or all of the 5 W's, few leads fit all of these in. If they did they would either be tedious, opaque with jargon or too long.
 * The second paragraph is a fine place for vital information that does not appear in the first. At the very end comes the non-vital material.
 * On the other hand, Wikipedia: Lead section says that "the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs."
 * Now, I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but since there are no specific guidelines, and we can't even agree here, all of this bears fleshing out. Actually, this article's lead section is one paragraph...  But I'll see what I can do.  Exploding Boy 06:33, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded lead section. Exploding Boy 06:42, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice article. Objection: needs pic, or several. Then support - David Gerard 15:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions for photo? The obvious thing would to be have a 1950s-style married couple.  80.229.39.194 15:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The '50s married couple. Transvestites. Hermaphrodites. Manly men. Womanly women. That's just off the top of my head. There must be pics aplenty already on Wikipedia for the purpose - David Gerard 15:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What about just a butch woman or effeminate man? Ambivalenthysteria 09:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I've thrown together a quick graphic of the mars and venus sigils that are commonly used to symbolize gender roles. I think it would look ok as the graphic for this article on the front page, but it might be too cheesy.  If someone finds a better photo (is there something from the kinsey studies that can be used here) feel free to replace it.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:37, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * eegh, that is so cheesy. I'll see what I can come up with. There must be something on Wikipedia already. Failing that, I'll round up TS and TG folks of my acquaintance for the camera ... - David Gerard 13:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. That's pretty impressive, and a lot of the other gender-related articles are horrid. In comparison, I can't find anything wrong with this at all. Ambivalenthysteria 09:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. However, the article would greatly benefit from images illustrating traditional gender roles.  195.167.169.36 12:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)