Talk:LGBTQ/GA3
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Will add to this soon. Other editors are welcome to make comments. It will focus on the tags present in the articles, but any other concerns relative to the criteria can be brought up. AIRcorn (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Before launching into a full review I usually add a few obvious issues to see if anyone is interested in fixing the article. At the moment we have the tags which need to be dealt with. There are dubious tags over the first use of the term and a neutrality banner at the top of the history section. These are obviously automatically fails. There is also quite a large "see also" section that could probably do with a trim. A long see also if correct generally means information is missing from the article. I will leave messages at the wikiprojects and interested editors and would encourage those more familiar with the topic to add their points of view (although the final call on keeping or delisting will be done by me). AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Dubious material: I placed (at least some of) the {{dubious}} tags and the Talk section, so I obviously agree with that portion of it.
- See-also list: As for the See also, I don't quite agree that a large list necessarily means missing info. That lengthy lists are not discouraged is borne out by the fact that they are mentioned in the very first sentence at MOS:SEEALSO, which goes on to say: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. In a large or complex topic, especially one that is about a topic that may be unfamiliar to some, I often find a long, well-designed "See also" section very helpful and interesting; it can be like an info graph of other topics that may draw me in and motivate me to explore other topics that might place the article in context. That said, I find that many of the terms in this particular list are like a tag cloud about the LGBT subject, items that should be (or already are) included at Outline of LGBT topics, which itself, is not included and should be and are not so much about "terms" related to LGBT as a term. For example, there are no links to other articles related to LGBT terminology, or even terminology more generally. I would remove all the links starting with LGBT in that list, and add others like Terminology of homosexuality, LGBT linguistics, Dyke (slang), and possibly more wide-ranging (more tangential) topics such as Reappropriation.
- Focus: One issue that concerns me about the article is the amount of off-topic subject creep that accumulated for a while, with addition of information related to the topic of LGBT more generally, without addressing the topic of the article, which is the term itself, and leaving the article unfocused. Editors dealt with this by removing information unrelated to the topic (this edit by Giraffedata is a great example); I added the hat note now found at the top stating explicitly what the article is about, and where to find other articles. This seems to have slowed the subject creep and the article seems pretty tight now, but it needs ongoing vigilance, and it is something that should be considered as part of this (or any) reassessment. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the see also I realise this comes across as more my reading of how they operate (although I am not alone in this). Well developed articles generally have short see alsos as most of the information relevant to a see also should be already in the article. They are not supposed to be repeated if they are linked in the body. These do tend to bloat out naturally over time as it is easier to add a see also than actual content. It is not a GA requirement in itself per se, but more an indication that information might be missing. I haven't gone in depth enough at this time to confirm this is the case. I agree that a link to outlines or broader overview articles is much better. AIRcorn (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Don't want to hijack your GAR thread too much, but I really enjoy the tangentially related topics raised in See-also's. For example, I'd find Decline of the Maya Empire a terrific link at Decline of the Roman Empire (and why don't we have that article?). The body of the main article itself is, or should be, a repository of all the links that are related enough to be in the body of a mature article. I want See-also to expand my horizons, and show me some stuff I might not have thought of, that aren't closely related enough to deserve a linkin the body text, but *are* close enough to whet the appetite of an inquiring mind that finds the topic interesting. That kind of link is harder to come by, and can be extremely rewarding when someone does find them and adds them to the article. I've found many fascinating new topics to explore at Wikipedia that way. Anyway, just my 2¢; back to our regularly scheduled discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think that the fall of the Roman and Mayan empires don't really constitute living documents, and are not terms used as umbrellas for an entire subject area, so that's kind of apples to oranges. I think a link to Outline of LGBT topics, and then a few major topics regarding either the term or items of great historical significance in the subject area should be included. I'm a little iffy about linking to the decidedly more fringe constructionist topics though that come along with queer theory (see dubious material) which I would leave to the outline. I would stick with concrete events like for example Stonewall riots in the see also.Ethanpet113 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Don't want to hijack your GAR thread too much, but I really enjoy the tangentially related topics raised in See-also's. For example, I'd find Decline of the Maya Empire a terrific link at Decline of the Roman Empire (and why don't we have that article?). The body of the main article itself is, or should be, a repository of all the links that are related enough to be in the body of a mature article. I want See-also to expand my horizons, and show me some stuff I might not have thought of, that aren't closely related enough to deserve a linkin the body text, but *are* close enough to whet the appetite of an inquiring mind that finds the topic interesting. That kind of link is harder to come by, and can be extremely rewarding when someone does find them and adds them to the article. I've found many fascinating new topics to explore at Wikipedia that way. Anyway, just my 2¢; back to our regularly scheduled discussion. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the see also I realise this comes across as more my reading of how they operate (although I am not alone in this). Well developed articles generally have short see alsos as most of the information relevant to a see also should be already in the article. They are not supposed to be repeated if they are linked in the body. These do tend to bloat out naturally over time as it is easier to add a see also than actual content. It is not a GA requirement in itself per se, but more an indication that information might be missing. I haven't gone in depth enough at this time to confirm this is the case. I agree that a link to outlines or broader overview articles is much better. AIRcorn (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments everyone. The tags alone are enough for a delist so I will do that now. Anyone can feel free to renominate it at WP:GAN if they resolve them. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)