Wikipedia:Peer review/CBS Reports: The Homosexuals/archive1

CBS Reports: The Homosexuals
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because with a recent expansion I believe that it comes close to if not meets the Good Article criteria and would like for a reviewer to look it over before making the GA nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I think your chances of passing a GA review are good. The article is generally well-written, seems factually accurate and verifiable, is broad in coverage, seems neutral to me, and is stable. The single image is OK, and I think the license is OK, although the description page might say how the image was captured (and from what) and give a link to the source, if possible. "Source: the episode" is hard for a fact-checker to verify.

Infobox
 * The blank fields for episode number and chronology look a little odd. I wonder if they can be filled with data or, if not, removed entirely.

Lead
 * "a public television station out of San Francisco" - "In" rather than "out of"?
 * "The Homosexuals garnered mixed critical response, with the network garnering praise from some quarters and criticism from others for even airing the program." - The "with plus -ing" construction is ungrammatical, and "garnered, garnering" is repeated. Suggestion: "The Homosexuals garnered mixed critical response. The network received praise from some quarters and criticism from others for even airing the program."
 * Link "sting" to sting operation?
 * Perhaps a link to gay?

Production
 * Wikilink lesbian?

Segments
 * I'd be inclined to render the numbered list in straight prose without numbers. Presenting it as a list draws attention to it as something special, which it doesn't seem to be. Presenting it as straight text would make it no more or less important than the other paragraphs. It would still be a list and would convey the same information.
 * The Manual of Style suggests using "percent" rather than % for simple constructions such as the ones in this article. If you make this change, the "10" and the "percent" need to be nailed together with a no-break code (nbsp).
 * "Washington D.C." should be "Washington, D.C.,".
 * "He contrasted the comments of the previous subject, saying that he had come out to his family at age 14 and, far from being treated like a sick animal, they treated him with warmth and understanding." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "In contrast to the unidentified person on the couch, he said that he had come out to his family at age 14 and, far from seeing him as a sick animal, they treated him with warmth and understanding."
 * "Following remarks from Socarides " - Maybe "after" would be better here to break up the repetition of "following" that starts two other nearby sentences as well as this one.
 * "Goldman asserted that homosexuality "is just one of a number of...things all tending toward the subversion, toward the final erosion, of our cultural values." - Even though the source for this is probably the same as the Vidal quote, it would be good to give the source here as well.

Participants' response and personal fallout
 * "Consequences" rather than "fallout"?
 * Perhaps "Amster Yard" could be explained. The red link doesn't help, and it's not clear from context what it refers to.
 * The two Wallace quotes should probably be sourced right after the quotation marks in each case.
 * "Despite this personal knowledge, Wallace relied on the American Psychiatric Association's categorization of homosexuality as a mental illness rather than his own experience in creating the episode." - Delete "rather than his own experience" as redundant?

Notes
 * I believe et al. should be in italics since it's Latin rather than standard English.
 * Citations 12 and 22 could be combined by using ref = name. It might be possible to combine some of the others by tweaking the page numbers slightly, but this is pretty nit-picky and not necessary.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. As always, very helpful. Couple of things:
 * There does not appear to be a way to delete the episode chronology information from the infobox. The relevant fields are Prev and Next; when removed we're left with the blanks and arrows. I have been unable to find out what the surrounding episodes are or another television infobox (Infobox television special would be good but it doesn't exist). So either the fields remain blank pending somehow locating the ep information, something like "Unknown" goes in the fields or I switch to a different infobox, for example Infobox Film. No real good solutions.
 * I was afraid that might be the case. I played around with the infobox a bit and didn't find a solution either. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the segment list, the reasons I have it as a list are 1) I didn't realize I had the more detailed summary until stumbling across it a few days ago and 2) since I haven't seen the episode myself I don't know for sure what fell in each segment. I think it would look even more odd to put the list into prose form (along the lines of "The episode consisted of segments called..." or whatever) and then not really tie the segments to the description that follows. Do you think losing the list entirely would be the better way to go? Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of deleting it entirely, but that sounds like a good idea. The detailed description seems sufficient by itself. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I pulled the list and added a sentence at the end to encompass a couple of segments that weren't touched on in the overview. Thanks again for your input. Otto4711 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)