Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Peer review/National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Considering this article for B class and ultimately would like to nominate it for GA class. Varnent
Wafulz
[edit]I guess I'll review this in accordance with WP:WIAGA
- Writing
- Grammar, prose, and tone are pretty bad
- It is written in first person. It should be written in third.
- "The first national LGBT rights organization, they remained relatively uncontested" should start with "As the first..."
- Decades should be written without apostrophes (ie "1980s" vs "1980's"). Relevant decades can be wikilinked.
- The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD
- It is not properly wikified. It needs more relevant wikilinks
- It reads like an advertisement
- The headers are poorly formatted. Only the first word should have a capital letter (with exceptions for proper nouns)
- There are too many short sections consisting of just one paragraph or one sentence. They should be merged together or fleshed out with relevant detail.
- Factual accuracy
- There are only six inline citations. There should be far more. They also need proper formatting- see WP:CITE.
- Five of the six citations are from the organization itself- this presents clear issues with regards to neutrality and a notability standpoint
- I suggest you start from independent sources and rewrite the article
- Broad coverage
- There's a lot said about the organization's goals, mission, and function, but very little about perception and reaction. I'm sure that as a 1973 homosexual establishment it has had some sort of problems or media coverage. The article is only about 10kb in length- 20kb is the barebones floor minimum for most articles to be considered "comprehensive"
- It needs a history section. Articles on organizations should examine them from an historical perspective, with a fully encyclopedic tone.
- Neutrality
- Written entirely from the perspective of the organization, and written like a brochure, this article is definitely nowhere near neutral
- Stable
- Seems fine.
- Images.
- Needs more images- does the organization have a headquarters? Posters of any sort? Free images are preferred. The organization logo lacks fair use rationale.
This article isn't really close to good article status. It's definitely still start-class, and will probably require a full rewrite with more, better sources.-Wafulz 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
SatyrTN
[edit]I've added some references of criticism, but that section could be expanded quite a bit. Another criticism I didn't include is that the organization is "too mainstream". I also organized it a bit. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)