Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/In re: Gill

In re: Gill
This is about the case currently on appeal in Florida, which could overturn the gay adoption ban there. I'm interested in a general review. I want to help expand Wikipedia's coverage of legal cases related to LGBT rights and this is my first attempt. Thanks. Viciouslies (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments added by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I just want to start off by saying it's very apparent that a lot of hard work went into this article, and it really shows. There's just a few things that need to be done to improve it. Some are big, some are small. But really, it's a great first go.

The first sentence should be split into two sentences or shortened to make it clearer. You've also just given away the ending of the case in the lead without any mention of what happened in between. Nothing wrong with giving away the ending, the lead should be a summary of the article, but you need to include the in-between parts as well. You could also take out a lot of the detail here and simply say: "As a result of the case the plaintiff was granted legal guardianship" or something similar.

We don't need to know what state to boys were in when they arrived in foster care. It's pertinent in the court case but it isn't pertinent to the court case itself which is what this article should be focussing on. Better to focus on when they arrived, how long they were there etc. etc.

'Thriving in their new home' isn't something we can categorically state, even if a source stated it. It isn't neutral to the facts of the matter. What is important is that a judge terminated the parental rights of the boys' biological parents, and that Martin contacted the ACLU.

Similarly stating what Martin knew, however true, is veering dangerously close to a third person narrative rather than an encyclopedic article.

What studies did the ACLU cite? This would be very good to know. Similarly, you're painting the plaintiffs in a good light by vaguely mentioning their studies and the defendents' witness in a bad light by making the assertion that his evidence had been discredited. This either needs a source or needs to be removed immediately. A more balanced take on the evidence presented/witnesses would be better. Doesn't mean you have to not mention that the evidence was discredited, or that the plaintiffs evidence was widely accepted, just means you have to have an equally scrupulous mind and lots of sources, when discussing both sets of evidence.

There should probably be a section dedicated to the outcome of the trial rather than just a paragraph in another section.

More about the appeal please!


 * This peer review discussion has been closed.


 * These concerns were addressed and rectified when I did a massive edit of the article, with many additional sources, in July 2011; somehow, I missed the note that said there was a peer review open on this, but I am now removing the tag from the article's talk page. Textorus (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)