Talk:Asexuality/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 07:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd removed the GA tag from this talk page[1] because not only did I not think that this article was ready for GA status (and of course I still don't), we (myself and college students who just signed up here for a project; I'm not one of them) are just now in the process of significantly fixing up this article and I don't have the time to meet the GA demands. I thought that removing the GA tag from the article talk page would be enough to keep this article from going through with the GA review, which is what I was told at another article that was nominated without consulting the main contributors. This article was nominated for GA status by an IP. How is that valid, and can this GA review be removed without counting as a fail? Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that it was nominated by Xadmanx (one of the college students I was talking about) after I'd removed the first tag.[2] Well, hopefully Xadmanx and/or the rest of the group will address your concerns in the limited amount of time given for GA review. Like I stated, I don't have the time to tackle all of the demands, at least not quickly, though I may help out with some aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. I have not gotten too far into the text, but from my general overview I find several things that will need to be addressed before I pass this article. You can get started on these:

• References. http addresses are not enough for a ref as they fall prey to WP:link rot. All refs should have the following: Author, date of publication, title, work/publication, access date (if website). I know not all of these may be available fore some websites, but get as many as you can. See WP:CITE for more guidelines.
• Lead. While I cannot yet judge if the lead adequately summarizes the content of the article, it does not look to be a very strong lead. See WP:Lead for more info on how to write a good lead.
• External links. This section looks like it might be too long. Please remove any unnecessary/inappropriate ones and duplicates (if the websites are cited in the references section, they may not be needed in the external links section).

That's all for now. I'll probably find more later. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 08:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed

Alright, I've finished with my review, and I like what I've seen in the article thus far. There is a lot of good content. However, here are the problems needing to be addressed:

• Lead. The lead needs to be expanded to include the following items:
  • There should be a dedicated paragraph on the fact that asexuality has only recently come to be accepted. You can mention how previous, people "flew under the radar", and it wasn't until recently that research has been done. Also include how asexual communities are only now beginning to develop since the advent of the internet and social media.
  • Also include that asexuality does not mean that a person is not romantically inclined as some asexual individuals form relationships or marry into an asexual arrangement.
  • Also include in the lead that asexuality is not a sexual disorder.
• New section needed. There needs to be a dedicated section about what makes asexuality distinct from celibacy, abstinence, and sexual disorders. I would include the paragraph about its similarity to hypoactive sexual desire disorder (second to last paragraph in "Research" section) into this new section and also stress that asexuality is not any type of other disorder such as female sexual arousal disorder, anorgasmia, anhedonia or sexual phobia. I was thinking about starting this section myself, but I think it needs someone with more expertise and access to the research papers (I won't until I get to work on Monday). I would appreciate if someone with more expertise could start this.
• Notable asexuals. Citations needed for all the fictional characters, I will accept episode numbers and page numbers of books, but it would be best if there was a third party reference stating why they are notable. It would also be helpful to have a sentence by each one stating why their inclusion in the list is relevant to the topic.
• References Here the big part that I don't have enough time to do myself. Please see my comments in the above section about how to go about fixing the citations. Here's what needs to be done.
  • Citations that are mostly bare urls needing full citation: #1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 46-50, 52-59, 63, 67
  • Citations needing pages numbers: #16, 17, 18
  • Citations needing more information (PMID and/or DOI, ISBN, title source, etc.): #7, 18, 22, 26, 28, 37

I think that should take care of if. I will put this article on hold until then. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For the "New section needed" part of your review, do you think that we need a Definitions section and that the material you suggested would fit there? I went over this on the article talk page in different spots, but asexuality is not consistently defined the same way. See this source and this source (especially, Theme 2: Definitions of asexuality, page 345). While some (researchers included) define asexuality to mean absolutely no sexual attraction, others define it to include "little to no sexual attraction." Some people define themselves as asexual because, while they can feel sexual attraction to a person, they would rather not have sex with anyone and/or they significantly lack that desire. Not to mention, asexuals who say that they have a sex drive -- the desire to masturbate -- but not the desire to engage in sex with a person. All of that is why the lead currently says "is the lack of sexual attraction" and "the lack of interest in sex" instead of using the word "no."

On a side note, I cleaned up the bare references in the lead...and will try to get some time to tackle your other concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A "Definition" type section is definitely what I had in mind for the "new section" I mentioned. Thank you for your above comment. I agree that the term "lack of" would be preferred over "no" sexual interest. I have contacted a few other frequent contributors of this article to notify them of this review process and the issues needing to be addressed. Hopefully a group effort can be made to get this article up to status. While the GA review guidelines suggest that the hold period only last for about a week, I would be willing to let it go longer than that in order to get the work done. It might take some time, but I think this is an important article and I think it is possible to get this article up to status. I will appreciate all efforts to improve this page. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tea with toast. Something else I didn't mention about your GA outline is that you say "[t]here should be a dedicated paragraph on the fact that asexuality has only recently come to be accepted" and that the section you proposed should "also stress that asexuality is not any type of other disorder," but if you look at the Sexual orientation and etiology section, you can see that asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation (which makes it sort of odd that we have included it in Template:Sexual orientation, though that's also been debated) and that some researchers categorize it as either another form of sexuality or as a disorder. So by "accepted," what is it exactly that you mean? Started to become accepted? And how do we tackle the "not any type of other disorder" issue when there are still a lot of researchers who would classify it as a disorder; I don't believe that any of those researchers would call it a mental disorder, which is more so WP:FRINGE these days, but they do seem to believe that it is a sexual disorder. I can't fathom any other type of disorder they would be talking about.

Basically, since there is this debate among researchers, about whether asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation, just a variant of sexuality (since asexuals can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual...just not sexually active ones), or a sexual disorder, when we create the Definitions section, this information would need to go there. And there's going to need to be a merge of some kind since the Sexual orientation and etiology section is already addressing this and we don't want much redundancy. I'm thinking that the "Romantic relationships" and "Sexual orientation and etiology" sections should be subsections of the Definitions section, and that some of what is in the Community section, which also goes over romances, should be moved to the Romantic relationships section.

I take it that you're okay with the reference formatting now that Nick Levinson has fixed up the rest of the bare references? Or is there some type of consistent reference formatting you want for specific type of references? Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Flyer, that the concept of asexuality is not entirely accepted nor is their an agreement of the definition of it. The fact that all of these things are still being debated should be included in the text. I agree with all your other suggestions of mergers, those sound good. I'm not entirely satisfied with the citation style that Nick has chosen, but what is more worrisome to me is that now I find that most of the references are from blog posts and social networking threads, which are generally not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. They can be appropriate in some cases -- such as when social media is the topic being described -- but I will now look into which ones are still acceptable and which ones should be replaced. --Tea with toast (話) 02:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Tea with toast. I'll implement my suggestions and try to incorporate yours about distinguishing (and to comparing in one case) asexuality from some sexual disorders as soon as I have something written up about how different researchers/asexuals define the term. I of course agree about blogs not being acceptable sources, except for in the case of newspaper and magazine blogs or the case you describe. Are most of the references in the article really like that? If I'd known, I would have removed them; I haven't worked that extensively on this article (just mainly reverting vandalism or faulty additions, and addressing comments on the talk page), which is why I didn't catch them. I'll try to address, in a timely fashion, any reference concerns you list here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll implement what I stated above tomorrow. I intended to do that today, but I got sidetracked in another Wikipedia discussion that has been going on since this morning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here are the changes. Before that, as you may already know, I'd removed all of the unsourced/poorly sourced religious information...as well as the poorly sourced fictional characters.[3] I was iffy on including mention of AVEN in the lead, since they are now mentioned in two places of the lower body of the article, but the last paragraph of the lead (with my revision) seemed lacking without mentioning them there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Other tweaks to my revision.[4] I also forgot to state that I added this Psychology Today blog because it has valuable information and counts as a reliable source...per WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs.

Oh, and looking at the article again, I see that AVEN is actually mentioned in three spots in the lower body. Either that's two many mentions, with this not yet being a big article, or too many links per WP:OVERLINKING (or both). Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

More tweaks.[5] Something else of note is that while it may seem (possibly at only first glance) that the information in the Romantic relationships and identity section about masturbation and having sex with romantic partners to please them belongs in the Sexual activity and sexuality section, I point out that it fits better where it is because that section is going over the different types of asexuals and their romantic relationships, which sex may or may not be a part of. As seen, I did give a brief mention of this material at the beginning of the Sexual activity and sexuality section...pointing readers to the Romantic relationships and identity section for further information in case they skipped this aforementioned section...and leaving the Sexual activity and sexuality section to deal with the in-depth research about sexual activity and sexuality among asexuals (which is placed under the Research heading, after all). Besides, there is no rule that we can't mention the same thing in more than one section of an article; it's done in plenty of Wikipedia articles, and sensible when relating to more than one section...as it does in this case. It's just a matter of not being too redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm much impressed with the changes that have been made! I have not yet had the time to look through everything in detail, but from my overview, things look very promising! I'll get back to you in the next few days with my final comments. Thanks for all your work. --Tea with toast (話) 04:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed the text added by Marchingdude,[6][7] as seen in these edits.[8][9] The reasons are: AVEN's definition of asexuality is a WP:Primary source, even though it was backed to a secondary source in Marchingdude's edit, and is not the definition used by most researchers. Sure, most researchers include "no sexual attraction," but that is not the only definition most of them use. As the section I created points out, they also use "little to no sexual attraction" (basically "lack of sexual attraction," which can mean "no" or "little," combined with other factors). The way researchers define the term should definitely come first. Marchingdude's source is also an abstract, meaning that I do not yet have access to the complete text. I'll either have to sign up to that site, purchase the article, or both. I'll sign up to see if I can simply access the text that way. If I cannot, then my not replying with a followup here about that will be the answer. I generally have no problem trusting editors on sources that I cannot access myself, but Marchingdude's edit stated "This is the "official" definition that the majority of the asexual community identify themselves under, and have in common with each other." I have my doubts that the source says this. And even if it does, other sources in the article show that this is not the way that most people who identify themselves as asexual define the term. Half may say that they have absolutely no sexual attraction and/or "need" to masturbate, but the other half may have little sexual attraction and/or some "need" to masturbate. Further, if this is AVEN saying that the majority of the asexual community define asexuality to mean "no sexual attraction," maybe they mean their own community at the website. If they do not, I do not believe that we should take AVEN's word that the majority of asexuals define asexuality that way. What worldwide statistics have they done to come to that conclusion? And, again, they are a primary source.

Marchingdude also included this text: "Unfortunately, this definition is somewhat broad, and is one big reason why there is some controversy that surrounds Asexuality as a sexual orientation." It's simply POV to say "unfortunately," per the obvious and per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Editorializing. And if the broad definition is a big reason why there is such a controversy among researchers about defining asexuality as a sexual orientation, this information belongs in the Sexual orientation and etiology section, which already tackles that debate. And that's where I put some of Marchingdude's text (the stuff that was not redundant, and tweaked any "weasel-wordy" stuff). I put Marchingdude's text about some asexual men being completely unable to get an erection in the paragraph about the broad definition of asexuality, though.

Finally, something else I did not like is that Marchingdude divided half of what AVEN says about asexuality. Marchingdude left the "no sexual attraction" and "[a]nother small minority will think of themselves as asexual" part at the top, but cut away the "[t]here is no litmus test to determine if someone is asexual." line and left the following at the bottom: "Asexuality is like any other identity - at its core, it’s just a word that people use to help figure themselves out. If at any point someone finds the word asexual useful to describe themselves, we encourage them to use it for as long as it makes sense to do so". That left the text to where it is directly speaking to the reader and it could be anyone saying it.

Those are all of the reasons I changed Marchingdude's text. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All that said, I am open to striking a compromise with Marchingdude about having what AVEN has to say about asexuality come first in the Romantic relationships and identity section. I believe that the terms should come before the paragraph definitions, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, I went ahead and moved AVEN's definition and explanation to the first spot, since it is attributed to them by text and can be taken as authoritative or not. It's not in the lead for the reasons I've already gone over above about how most researchers and people who identify as asexual may define the term, but it's fine coming first in the Romantic relationships and identity section. I must admit that it flowed better to me coming last, explaining that anyone who feels that the term best fits them is more than welcome to adopt it. But I understand the need among many asexuals to have it strictly defined as "no sexual attraction." I await what you have to state about which paragraph should come first. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Some latest tweaks.[10][11][12] And I'll of course make more tweaks, etc. as days go on. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am satisfied with the many changes that have been made to the article in order to get it to good status. Thank you for all your hard work! --Tea with toast (話) 17:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you and thank you for your tweaks (small and big). Flyer22 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)