Wikipedia:Peer review/Lesbian/archive1

Lesbian

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a broad concept: a noun, adjective, and social construct. I rewrote the article and posted it February 10, 2009, expanding it by 64K. Though I asked for input on and off wiki, I haven't really had much of a response. I think the article may be able to get to FA, but that is not my goal right now. I'm just looking for any kind of feedback on the writing, structure, and content of the article. I plan to add a section on literature over the next several days, as well as expanding the section on female homosexuality outside of the Western world. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found this listing via WikiProject LGBT studies. This is my first attempt at a peer review: please let me know if this isn't the kind of response you wanted.

Great work here Moni3- you've added lots of excellent material, and the scope of the article is now very good. A few suggestions on further improvement:

The lead would benefit from a copyedit for flow: there's some passive voice in para 3; para 1 sentence 3 has a confusing structure (the comma suggests a list of definitions will follow, but only one does); 'unique' seems the wrong word in para 2 sentence 2 (discrete? Concrete? Distinct?); etc. I'm quite happy to attempt a copyedit of the whole article, if you don't object. There are no huge style issues, but the flow could be enhanced in places.

The article effectively presents a two-part history of lesbianism, with c19th-21st history presented in the "Identity and gender" section and pre-Victorian lesbianism discussed, later in the article, under "Female homosexuality without identity". I know the earlier section technically covers the history of the term, but this ordering could confuse. Listing non-European cultures in this latter section also has some scope to raise anthropological hackles: it could be seen to imply that non-European experience equates to earlier stages of western history. I'm sure that's not the intended imputation, but it might be good to split off and expand the 'Outside Western cultures' subsection into a second-level heading of its own.

The assertion that men have produced most media about lesbians needs a cite.

Trivial point: the section heading 'Current issues of lesbians' gave me a double-take. Maybe it's just me, but "current issues" makes me think of magazine publishing (as opposed to back issues, you know?), and makes it sound like we're a periodical (insert your own "coming out weekly" pun here *g*).

I hope some of this was helpful. In any case, thanks for all your work on the article, Moni3. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get someone to copy edit it seriously. I haven't worked with you as yet, but I'm open to copy editing always. However, I like to discuss changes and whatnot to the article. Much of what I have written and chosen to do here has a deliberate thought behind it; other things... I have no idea sometimes how something turned out the way it did.

I decided to structure the article this way because it 1. starts with the origin of the concept of a lesbian, and 2. starts with something readers can identify with—some of their knowledge of what a lesbian is, or the traits of lesbians, for example, is tapped in the beginning. It gives them a starting point to relate to the rest of the material. I like this structure because it highlights the fact that lesbians as a group of people were created, essentially, around the turn of the 20th century, which is what the sources say. It also follows how the knowledge of female homosexuality was constructed: much analysis of women's sexuality did not take place until after the feminist movement of the 1970s.

I included the issues of lesbianism in non-western society because it further illustrates the point that sexuality, gender, and identity are western constructs, as well as discusses women's sexuality in other cultures. I'm not sure what "anthropoligical hackles" could be raised; certainly no offense is meant, but the article should point out that a lesbian identity is a western 20th century construct although lesbian behavior takes place across cultures through history.

Thanks for your review. It was exactly what I was looking for. --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Siawase: Ditto previous poster, this is the first time I've tried doing a peer review, so please let me know if any of my comments are less than helpful. They are all over the map in scope. Overall though, this is a great expansion. My romantically inclined friend loved the romantic friendships section! ^_^

Some of the lead is a bit vague "Lesbians share experiences as women, and as homosexuals, that reflect social attitudes about gender roles and sexual mores. Social perception of lesbians is often generated by media, shaping common understanding of women's sexuality, even among many lesbians. Unique physical and mental health issues are also faced by lesbians, as well as similar priorities and challenges in forming families and working for political equality." That chunk reads as a bit of a "tease", where you only get to the meat of what the specific issues alluded to actually are by reading the article, something the lead guideline discourages.
The film section is almost entirely US-centric (a few non-US movies are included, only when they predate the US examples it seems). And the TV section seems completely US-centric. I don't know how easy it would be to find good sources, but I know at least the UK has had notable examples of lesbian "firsts" on television.
As far as I know, the LA Law episode with the kiss aired in 1991.[1] Perhaps your source was vague because the bisexual character joined the show in 1990?
It's a bit odd that the see also history link comes after the section that contains the bulk of historic material, but I think this is related to the larger structural issues Gonzonoir commented on above.
Maybe include Eleanor Roosevelt in the main text instead of just a footnote?
The see also section is a bit of a jumble.
Depending on what sourcing can be found, maybe a small section about japanese yuri anime/manga could be included, this could help some of the US-centric nature of the media sections also.

Anyway, I hope my comments are a bit helpful at least. It really is a great article as it is. Siawase (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. As I posted on the Talk:Lesbian page, I recognize the film and television section is North American-centered (centred), because my library has no materials for film and television outside of the US and Canada. If you know of any reliable materials (books on cultural portrayals of lesbians), I'm willing to get them. I'm trying to stick to books than the oft-shaky web-based materials.

I'm also going to write another 4 paragraphs or so on literature. I may be able to address graphic novels and Yuri in that, but I had a section on visual arts I wanted to write, but I could not find reliable sources to discuss the portrayal of lesbianism in visual arts.

I'll check my source on the year for L.A. Law.

I'll look at re-writing the lead. It usually goes through the most revisions.

Since I have to add 5 or 6 paragraphs, I'm wary of uncovering footnotes right now. Eleanor Roosevelt is certainly a big name, and very controversial. I will certainly consider it, but I must also consider removing mention of Roosevelt at all. The article is already huge. I want to make sure it is still accessible for readers.

Please don't hesitate to continue making suggestions. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

Just dropped by to note a couple of things - bit rushed for time so can't do too much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think it would be really really good to get a central/core article such as this to FA status and kudos to you for doing so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The right-aligned image at the top is a good one, but looks odd as it is a different width to the infobox below it. This might need some rearranging but nothing springs to mind rightaway.

The word may be used as a noun, to refer to women who identify themselves or who are characterized by others as having the primary attribute of female homosexuality. - upon first reading I thought the comma was in the wrong spot, then I didn't...now I am not so sure..I think this sentence is cumbersome but an alternative doesn't spring to mind. I need to think on this.

and designated lesbians in Western culture as a distinct entity. - "indentified" "classified"?? ...'designated' just sounds funny to me but that may be just me so ignore if you feel I am off target here.

The word "lesbian" is derived.. - my understanding is that a word (in contrast to a sentence) emphasized thusly is more accurately done in italics rather than double quotes (?)

independent and masculine women were directly recruited by the military in the 1940s, and frailty discouraged. - scans funnily as you have adjective + women, then noun.

I can do more of a copyedit later, but I have a feeling that the lead doesn't reflect the text really. I feel it might need to be more historical and less explanatory really. This is just a first impression and I will revisit this later. Need to think on this.

Thanks for the visit. Please make as many comments as possible.
I've already changed the lead from the comments given before yours. What you read was the 2nd incarnation. Let me know what it is lacking and I will see what I can do.
Perhaps it is American punctuation, but when a word is used as an example of that word it is usually put in quotation marks. I wrote the article with most of the references to "lesbian" in this way. I removed most of the quotation marks for a reason that seemed very good at the time. Maybe because I thought the references were to the concept, and not to the word.
Let me know your thoughts. I look forward to your comments, and I'll address them as they come along. --Moni3 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With these, the film sections become agonising figuring which are the most notable to include. I recalled Go Fish (film) as a standout for a frank depiction, but I wondered what its impact was outside indy film circles...

The medical section has a few weasel words and repeated words and phrases. This will require some tweaking. I will try and do a bit.

Are you saying the film section could be cut? Because honestly, the only notability Go Fish has is its arrival as an indy film. That film was hideous. I only mentioned it because it was cited by 2 sources. Hidjous! If you're suggesting cuts I don't quite know what to cut yet in that section.

naw - I like it. It is just insanely hard to prioritise sometimes :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get as loose with medical and scientific language. I'm too worried about being inaccurate. If you make changes and GrahamColm agrees - he helped me write the physical health section - then I'm ok with it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kk Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yobmod

Just a few things i noticed (or didn't notice), that i would expect for a FA:

I'm suprised there is so little mention of lesbophobia (none)?, distinguishing how society and the legal system has treated lesbians differently from staight women or gay men. I think one sentence would be nice (and is easily sourced from the lesbophobia article).
Also i didn't see anything about depictions of lesbians for men. Most of the media sections cover works by lesbians or seriously exploring lesbian relationships, but research i've done for other articles shows that depicting lesbians for titilation or shock value is has always been a major part of their depiction. I think the summary in this article should at least mention this (in addition to the prevelance of stereotypes already there).
I agree with the above user aboutmentioning Yuri or other less-serious genres (femmeslash?) - not in there own section, but at least a section in either the "non-western" or media portrayals section.
A sentence on lesbian utopias (and dystopias?) in literature - i've just been writing about these at gender in SF, and they seem to be pretty common part of lesbian literature. Joanna Russ is most important in this fro 20thcentury US, but i can get sources for other countries / centuries.
The section i think most needs expansion is the non-western section. I don't know anything aobut it, but there must be more to say, no? No cultures still believe lesbians are evil/mentailly-ill/possessed by demons/gender-misidentified? It seems to only cover native americans and africa? So sentences on Australasian aboriginies, middle east, south asia, china, south america would be nice to see.Yob Mod 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Yobmod. I'm glad I get to discuss these issues.

I'm sure you realize these are the largest, most overarching issues of lesbians as a group. I'm not dissuading the inclusion of topics like Yuri, lesbian separatism, and lesbophobia, but what I included in the article got significant weight in the sources I used. I'm thinking of the weight of these issues, which related to some lesbians, in relation to development of lesbian subculture and gender roles, which related to all lesbians. I'm not saying these topics have no place, but I need sources to weight them in relation to the others in the article, and my standards for sources are really high. If you know of academic-level sources that discuss these issues, let me know and I'll do my best to get them.
On presentation of lesbians for men, it is mentioned twice, once in the Literature section, and in the first section of Popular culture. I would like a source to point out how lesbianism have been prepackaged by and for men for hundreds of years, but the sources I used did not say that. I think it's common knowledge among women, but I need a source to say it.
I have more information to add to the Outside Western cultures section, particularly among women in Asia. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I would also like to improve the Ancient Greece and Rome section. I have one source on lesbian communities in Central America. If you know of sources that speak specifically about lesbian Aborigines, or lesbians in South America I would be interested to see them. I hope the article was able to effectively relay the invisibility lesbians have met in history. Quite simply, not only is there no information about how lesbians live, there's no information about there being no information...
Thanks again. Feel free to give advice or discuss these issues. --Moni3 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]