Talk:It Gets Better Project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the It Gets Better Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Andrewmcfar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I found the Lead section of this article to be well-written. It provides a clear understanding of what the "It Gets Better Project" is along with a meaningful overview and key statistics. I thought the Structure of the article was logical. I felt that the "History" section was a bit short compared to the relative importance/length of the other sections in the article. I liked how the "Contributors" section was minimized as to not take up an unnecessary amount of space unless the reader wants. I thought there were a solid number of countries listed, but feel that some countries could use more information about them (like Italy which only has one sentence about it. The article was extremely well-cited, with 333 Sources that appeared to be reliable. The Grammar/Spelling seemed accurate to the best of my knowledge. Andrewmcfar (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluate Wikipedia

Lead Section: Good lead that is concise and includes major points regarding the topic

Content: good content, explains origins and importance of movement

Tone and Balance: this is a neutral tone

Sources and References: Mostly uses news coverage, could use more peer-reviewed content, though the topic may be too recent

Organization and Writing Quality: starts with origins of movement, clear writing, but missing some up-to-date information, what has happened recently with the movement

Images and Media: Only one media clip of Obama, nothing from the organization or of the founders

Jakeforbes22 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]