Wikipedia:Peer review/Save Our Children/archive1

Save Our Children

 * 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 December 2008.
 * 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I wrote this article about the battle for gay rights in Miami in 1977 and 1978, and though I'm not sure of its ultimate trajectory - if it should go to FA or not - I have two primary concerns: that it has POV issues, although it addresses two very opposite viewpoints; and it is unfocused, or rather that it focuses too much on Anita Bryant's role. I have tried to make clear that this campaign was unique because of her role, but an editor has stated that it seems to stray from the campaign to focus more about Bryant. I'm looking for as much input into these issues as I can get. If I have been unclear, or I need to provide more detail on a specific issue, I'll be happy to do that. I just need to know where. Thank you for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think the article is pretty well done and could be FA with a little work. I also think that it does a pretty good job of following the ramifications of the whole can of worms that Save Our Children and Anita opened. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks. Sorry not to have more comments - I think this is well done and balanced. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several places that seem to need references, for example the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Background section, or the very last two sentences of the same section, or Far exceeding the required 10,000 signatures, the coalition delivered more than 64,000 signatures within six weeks demanding a referendum vote, which the commission set for June 7, 1977. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * I would change the header "Reaction to the ordinance" to something like "Reaction to the proposed ordinance" - as it is the current header makes it sound like the orinance had already passed, when it only does so in the last sentence of the section.
 * Direct quote needs a ref immediately following per WP:MOSQUOTE in Foster and Geto set the public tone of the campaign battling Save Our Children and were determined not to "get down in the gutter with them", refusing to run an ad showing Bryant in a revealing outfit she had performed in in 1971, nor run commercials to point out that child molesters were primarily heterosexual.
 * To me the part of the article that seems to possibly be overly detailed is less the material on Anita Bryant (whose connection to Save Our Children is clear) as much as it is the detail of the "Other locations" section. I think talking about them in the context of the article is fine, but the amount of detail on elcetions where Save the Children was not directly involved seems a bit much. Could this be put in another article and summary style used here?
 * In the Fallout section, could it be made clearer when Bryant and Green stopped their association with Save Our Children?
 * The language is a bit rough in spots, but I know you always get good copyedits before the article is done.