Wikipedia:Peer review/Cisnormativity/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
I would like to hear how close this article is to passing a featured article candidacy. It is largely unchanged since I brought it to GA last December. At the time, I remember doing as comprehensive a review as I possibly could of the available academic sources discussing the topic, but I've never touched the FA process before, so any input is very welcome!
Thanks, -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]As requested, I'll do a review similar to what I would provide at FAC, in order to help you get a good idea of what reviewers might pick up on. I'm not that familiar with the topic, so it'll likely focus more on prose than sourcing, coverage, or other, less superficial areas.
- Very good first paragraph. Fulfils MOS:INTRO as good as any I have seen.
- The second sentence of the second paragraph is a bit lengthy and long-winded. This paragraph is also quite focused on the effects on cisnormativity on the healthcare of transgender people; as WP:LEAD favours summarising the whole article, it would be nice if the other effects outlined in "Manifestations" were also summarised in the lead. For example, a sentence summarising "Education" would be nice.
- I suppose "trans" is a common enough word to not need one, but perhaps "cis" as the shortened form of "cisgender" could use a gloss before its first use?
- Body
- I would put Serano's quote later in the first paragraph, and start with the when/where coinage of "cisnormativity". Starts the article body off more focused/encyclopedic and less essay-like.
- Although the separation between the first and third lead paragraphs works better, I feel that the sections "Definition" and "Intersectionality..." could be merged, especially as the "Definition" section already considers related concepts.
- I must compliment this article's prose, I'm really finding very little to pick at.
- Take care with the images though—MOS:IRELEV notes that they "must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". With the caption, the poster image is a little tangential—not completely significant in the topic's context. The simple sex-segregated diagram is however an excellent representation.
- Short paragraphs generally do not warrant their own subsections per MOS:OVERSECTION. Consider ways to combine short subsections, so that the prose is less cluttered.
- Although "Transmedicalism" is a section heading, its meaning is never actually explained, and it is a WP:SEEALSO link. The reader is sort of left wondering.
Otherwise, extremely high-quality article, in my opinion. I'll almost certainly support if you ping me at the FAC nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)