Talk:Chris Kempling/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Christine (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Having made no significant contributions to the article, I will evaluate this article using GA criteria. I have a feeling that the subject matter is the reason it's languished so long at GAN, so it is my hope that I can be fair and objective during this review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose) :

For the most part, the prose is okay, but it should be improved. Before I pass this criteria, I think that it needs a copyedit. There are several tense agreement errors throughout the article; for example: He also cited various studies that he interprets as showing harm caused by what he described as the "homosexual lifestyle". "Interprets" needs to agree with the past tense usages of the rest of the sentence, i.e., He also cited various studies that he interpreted as supporting the harm caused by what he called "the homosexual lifestyle". That's not even right, but it's an improvement. I've never thought that a review is a place to suggest prose improvements, so I won't go through the prose, line by line, like other reviewers do. That's what a good copyedit is for!

b (MoS) : I think the lead needs to summarize more of the body of the article, perhaps by citing some of the arguments for and against this case.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): There are a couple of broken links: #14, #15 (which doesn't load correctly and is illegible).

b (citations to reliable sources): Ref #3 is from a blog, and that's not always acceptable. However, I think that for GAs, there can be some latitude, and this particular source actually contains a letter written by Kempling describing some of the events. For that reason, I think it should stay. From this article's talk page, I see that there has been some discussion about the use of editorials. Ref #2 is an obvious editorial, and I would characterize #3 the same. Both are from reputable sources. Of course, if you take this article any further to FAC, you'll have to justify using them, but for now, in this GA review, they pass. I'll also assume good faith regarding the talk page's assertion that religious matters don't get covered in the Canadian press.

c (OR): I really like the use of primary sources here: the court and BCCT's decisions. Is there any way to include Kempling's original letter, the first one that got him in so much trouble? Perhaps it's in one of the offline sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage

a (major aspects): This article is missing some key elements to Kempler's story. For example, it may be a good idea to add a "Background" section, something I suspect you'll need it you bring it to FAC. How is homosexuality perceived in Canada? What is some of the historical background of the BCCT's decision to prevent Kempling's actions? I take issue with one sentence: There is an active debate about whether conversion therapy is effective or harmful. You need to explain that statement. What is conversion therapy, and what's behind the controversy surrounding it? One lone sentence with a link isn't enough. What's Kempler's background; why does he hold his particular beliefs? After reading this article, I have a great many questions, and a good article should answer all my potential questions. This one does not, at least not yet. To that end, there's no information about Kempling after 2006. What's happened to the guy since? Remember, this is a bio, not an article about the cases, although much of the content will include them, of course.

b (focused): This is one of the strengths of this article. See below.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias: A controversial and sensitive topic is covered well, with no axes to grind or agendas to keep. That's really hard to do. Be warned, though: other reviewers, especially if you take it to FAC, will disagree, mostly because of their agendas. At the same time, though, you don't present the other side, other than the original decisions. Are they any editorials from reliable sources written by Kempler's opposition? Has any members of the BCCT written anything about the reasons for their decisions against him?

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.: Surprisingly stable article, taking the subject matter into consideration.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. No images. I suspect that there are no free images of Kempling, but if there were, you should include one. (Perhaps if you write him, he'll provide one?) I don't think that every article on WP should have images, but there should be at least an attempt to include them. Perhaps you can include a map of Kempling's hometown. I'm not sure that any other image would be appropriate for this article.

Overall:

Pass/Fail: For now, it's a fail. However, if you addressed some of the issues above, I can change it. I'll keep the nomination open for a while to give you the chance to deal with them. Overall, however, a nice first attempt that presents a balanced view of events, something you should be commended for.

For clarity sake, I'm removing the confusing part about this article failing its GAN. What I meant was that I'm not going to pass it until the above issues are addressed, as per convention. Christine (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks and no concerns have been addressed, so it should probably be failed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one to nominate it, but I agree that it should be failed at this point. I would like to thank you for the detailed feedback; I've been away and haven't had the time to edit act on it, but it will provide good direction for improving the article in the future. On reflection, without a broader base of active editors, it probably isn't a good GA candidate.--Trystan (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of the fail. It's my hope that you work on improving this article. Don't let the fact that you're alone in improving it stop you; for most of my five GA, I worked on my own. It means more work for you, but the point is the improvement of articles on WP, and it's worth it. Christine (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)