Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Same-sex marriage in Spain

Same-sex marriage in Spain
This article is already a GA, and I believe it could be a FA one day. Suggestion to improve it to this end are greatly appreciated. Raystorm 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev920
Good article (well, obviously), here's some stuff I found:


 * No dictionary knows what "tramitation" means, and I don't know what you meant here.
 * Your use of references is good, but Residency issues and Marriage numbers could do with a few more. Footnotes should follow directly after a punctuation mark, without a space. You may wish to correct that.
 * "Canada's federal same-sex marriage legislation passed its final reading in the House of Commons in late June 2005. It received Royal Assent and became law in late July 2005." Is this sentence necessary? Can it be cut down?
 * In the history section, it says the bill was rejected because the "opposition People's party" held a plurality of seats. Was this because they were simply being contrary, or are they opposed to gay marriage anyway?
 * "Prominent People's Party members later rejected these afirmations by Polaino (who was later found to believe in exorcisms)." The exorcisms clause I think is slight POV.
 * "Children born within a lesbian marriage (from whatever means)" What does this bracketed clause mean, or add to the sentence?
 * "Catholics in particular were adamantly opposed to it." Well, that's not true, if 76% of Spaniards are Catholic, but 66% supported gay marriage. Can you clarify this sentence?
 * All dates (January 21, 2007) need to be wikilinked, per WP:DATE. It is somewhat sporadic throughout the article.
 * You need to reference the entire last paragraph of Reactions, or it seems like OR.

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'll add to it if I find anything. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article!


 * Sorry. Seems my Legal English isn't as fantastic as I thought. How do you call the process a law must undergo to finally become a law?
 * ratification (I am starting my own peer review now). Jeffpw 13:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With the marriage numbers, we tried to provide the estimations from a conservative source (La Razon), the LGTB Spanish organization and a Government officer. What other references should be added? I'll try to see what I can find for the Residency section.


 * The sentence about Canada is because there was some confusion about which country had become the third to allow gay marriage. In fact, some news sources list Spain as being the 4th country to allow it, instead of the third. I'll try to cut it down, but I think it's important to keep.


 * Ahhh, that's the mistery about the PP! In the previous 8 years, while they governed, they took no steps to provide equal rights to gays. In fact, they shot down several propositions from the opposition. They argue that if they had won the elections they would have regulated by law gay unions, but we will never know will we? They have gone to demonstrations against gay marriage, saying their problem is the use of the word 'marriage', not gay people per se. So you could say they opposed gay marriage at the Senate because they were both being contrary (they've seldom agreed with the Government in anything) and because they did not support gay marriage.


 * *Grin* Okay, the exorcism sentence might be slightly POV. I think I added it to provide a counter balance to Polaino's previous statements. I figured it'd be 'informative' to let people know that the guy who said such things about gays had also written articles based on religious beliefs as opposed to hard science (that would be relevant explaining his gay statements, don't you think?). An article is provided as a ref too, so it isn't just hearsay. But if it is a big problem it can be removed or reworded.


 * The lesbian marriage sentence. Well, I also don't like it too much. The 'from whatever means' refers to the several possibilities (in vitro, male friend) a lesbian could get pregnant. It makes no difference the way a lesbian gets pregnant. It's not a strong sentence, I'll see if I can reword it.


 * Well, the problem is the definition of Catholic. Most Spaniards are Catholic because they were baptised at birth, and that fact is recorded and cannot be changed even if the person later rejects the Catholic creed. As baptism is a tradition in Spain, most Spaniards are Catholic. I could say 'Catholic authorities' to prevent confusion.


 * I thought the dates were okay? Well, I'll change them then.


 * You mean the paragraph about gay adoption being legal in several Spanish cities? Alright. I'll see if I can make some sort of wiki link to the Gay Rights in Spain article.


 * Thanks again Dev920! :) I'll try to make the changes asap. Cheers! Raystorm 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article does have a good shot at FA, but you must get a good copyeditor to go through it first. There are some prose issues that I cannot help you with. I've fixed some rogue footnotes, so do be careful about this with your next article. Otherwise, I cannot think of anything else to say about this article. Well done! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Already requested a copyeditor to go through it. :) Thanks! Raystorm 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Does this mean it might now rate A-class at the Wikiproject? ;P Raystorm 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw's review

 * lead: first sentence: it is IN not ACROSS. Why is Spain bolded?
 * Double use of officially is jarring


 * rather high:--seems weaselly to me. Can you provide actual figures?


 * Ditto for the sentence about Catholics; you should also modify this per Dev's comment.


 * decided to challenge. Did they challenge or not? Simply saying challenged is less ambiguous.


 * delete and only if from sentence about foreigners marrying (it's redundant)


 * History: some local benefits--this is not precise; what do you mean???


 * breakup is a colloquialism; if the relationship ended might be a better term.


 * about marriage is rather clunky. Consider changing to in matters relating to marriage.


 * Check the entire article for use of passive voice. I thought I noticed it a few times in the article.


 * the day of his inauguration. Changing to AT his inauguration will read better.


 * only wikify dates if year is also included, per WP:MOS


 * Remove Canada sentence, per Dev--it's just unnecessary.


 * Complete tramitation of Law 13/2005-- Tramitation is actually ratification. Also, what does 13/2005 mean??? is that a date?


 * critic about--you mean critcal of

It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?


 * previsions:Do you mean provisions? I would suggest deleting that clause, as it does not add to sentence.


 * no effect in a childs' development--ON a child's.


 * affirmations. I think you mean assertions.


 * (with the girls): change to regarding girls; same with the part about boys.


 * exorcisms per Dev (but I like it!).


 * uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.


 * The uplifting of the veto supposed its definite approval as law. Ditto.


 * sanctioned could better be written as endorsed.


 * True enough, the king of Spain would later proceed to give his Royal Assent to the law. Remove true enough. It's just plain awkward.


 * Residency issues: consulate marriages: Add consuls in S Africa--same-sem marriage is now legal there.


 * Belgium and Netherlands only marries residents--cite please. Also, wikilink to relevant articles about sema-sex marriage in the countries, not the countries themselves.


 * marriage numbers--more cites needed for first paragraph


 * divorces consummated: granted might be a more regular word choice.


 * Two weeks after this rally, and coinciding with the Gay Pride Day, 2.0 million people marched in favour of the new law for gays and lesbians, organizers claimed (official sources accounted 97,000). This is an odd sentence construction. Insert the final clause at the beginning of sentence.


 * matrimonio Is there some reason you wish to use this word, and then define it? Youcan also just say matrimony.


 * bringing up is an idiomatic phrase--raising is a better word choice.


 * There is a tense problem in reactions--you slip back and forth between past and present tense. Please adjust this accordingly.

All in all, this is an excellent article. I suggest you submit it to the League of copyeditors for a thorough edit, since English is your second language. After they have vetted it, please submit it for Good Article status. I would happily support its becoming a GA.


 * Err, it's already a GA. :) Law 13/2005 is the official name of the law. Spain is bolded because the articles' name is same-sex marriage in Spain (besides, followed Same-sex marriage in Canada lead for this per request of GA reviewer, check talk page). The 'rather high' comment is properly referenced at the reactions section, do I reference it again at the lead? I was just summarizing some sections' contents at the lead.


 * It argued that said extension was not demanded by the Spanish Constitution, and that the same result (end of discrimination) could be achieved through other legal means. Clarify this, please. Do you mean the expansion of rights to marry?


 * Well, it means that marriage wasn't necessary per se. Discrimination could be avoided by some kind of civil union regulation instead. I'll try to find a less confusing way to express this.


 * uplifted the veto--clarify please. I have no idea what you mean.


 * It means they took away the veto, it stopped having effect. I use British English, and I'm starting to realise some words are different from American English. (Just FYI, English is not my second language -I simply wasn't the only editor writing the article!). :)


 * AHA! In Americanspeak, that's "Override". Thanks for clarifying it for me. I hadn't heard the British term.


 * The marriage numbers. An online reference isn't provided, true, but the newspaper and agency that did these estimations are mentioned both by name and date. I thought that was valid?


 * I'll proceed with all the other changes asap (It's gonna be fun trying to find out if there's a Spanish Consulate in South Africa...). Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article! Cheers Raystorm, 21 January 2006, 17:25 UTC
 * Oops! I just went to the peer review from the LGBT page, so didn't look at the talk page tag, and only skimmed the rest of the stuff on this page. My apologies for not seeing that. Also, in rereading my review, I realize I may have come across as a pedantic dickhead, which was cewrtainly not my intention. I am doing 8 things at once, and was typing quickly (and a bit tersely, in retrospect). After you implement the suggested changes, consider submitting it for Featured status. At the very worst, you'll get more valuable feedback; and I think it has a very good shot at FA. Cheers, Jeffpw 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all mate, I honestly appreciate the feedback. Seeing lots of emoticons might make for a pleasant review, true, but it certainly isn't required. :) I'd rather have some good FB thrown back at me instead. Plus I understand all about time constraints, believe me. I'm glad you were able to drop your two cents in making this (hopefully) a FA one day. Cheers! Raystorm 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): weren't, don't, didn't, isn't.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * *Blink* Except for the image on the top right corner thing, I think everything else is covered. Raystorm 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a legislation infobox and juggled the images in the article a bit. How does it look now? Should I take it off or leave it? Raystorm 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Obviously I'm not asking the bot, but other humans. ;) Raystorm 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think you can add one more image to the top, or move one of the lower images? It looks a little stark, with the new infobox added. Jeffpw 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does, doesn't it? Let's see what I can do about it... Raystorm 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Better now? :) Raystorm 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Much! I know it seems strange, that the Spain box should be lower than the LGBT box, but the LGBT one is just so much more colorful. Visual appeal is a factor...to me, anyway. Call it the Queer Eye. :-) Jeffpw 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I wasn't liking too much the outcome either after I added the Spain infobox, but figured it was a necessary addition. It does look better now. We are all visual animals anyway. :) Raystorm 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)