Talk:Woodhull Freedom Foundation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello there; I'll give this a check over for you if you like.

Regarding the introduction:

• You don't actually mention that the WSFA is a U.S. organisation serving that particular country, which is important because non-Americans like myself might assume that it has global coverage otherwise.
• The introduction should mention that it was founded in 2003.
• You refer to an "article" in the Journal of Homsoexuality, but might it be more accurate to refer to it as an academic paper ?
• "...organization as one, "that addresses..." : No need for that comma.

Regarding the History section:

• I would suggest subdividing this section into three, entitled "Foundation: 2003", "Early activities: 2004–2009" and "Recent work: 2010–present".
• "The organization was first founded in..." : do you really need to state that it was "first founded" ?
• "against sexual repression, and LGBT organizations" : again, the comma is unnecessary.
• "Woodhull again coordinated with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 2005 organizing the event Red, White and Leather for Independence Day celebrations; "Over 30 Leather bars in 17 cities raised awareness and funds for both the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation."" : I feel that this entire sentence could be rewritten, without the need for direct quotations. How about "In 2005, Woodhull again coordinated with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in order to organize an event known as "Red, White and Leather for Independence Day", in which over 30 leather bars in 17 cities took part."
• "that highlights treatment of transgender people by law enforcement" : would it be better to refer to "examples of mistreatment" ?

Regarding the Reception section:

• This section contains a whole chunk of text copied directly from source. This is against Wikipedia policy, so it would be great it you could rewrite it in your own words.
• Furthermore, this section is a little short, are there any further sources which you can use to beef it up a bit. Has there been any criticism of the WSFA ? Or any further praise? If so, it needs to be included.

Many of the web links that you use might die fairly soon, so it might by worth using WebCitation to back them up (in a similar manner to how I used them over at Islam: The Untold Story).

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Otherwise I think that you have a great little article on your hands, and I'd be happy to award it GA status if these corrections are made. If you have the time and interest, you might like to undertake a GA review for my page over at Islam: The Untold Story; no pressure to do so, though. Best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to GA Review by Midnightblueowl

• Thanks very much for the GA Review, I'll be responding to the above points and addressing them in edits to the article, and then I'll note it back here on the GA Review subpage. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: In process going through point-by-point down above helpful recommendations by GA Reviewer, you can see specific notes in the edit summaries of the article page edit history. — Cirt (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've addressed everything as best I could. :) Thanks again for the helpful suggestions! — Cirt (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Right, looks good. I'm happy to award this page GA status; I'd still really recommend that you WebCite a lot of these links though. I know that it'll take time, but if you don't do it, many of these links might die in a year or so, and then the GA status will have to be revoked because the sources shall be un-verifiable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll look into that as the next step, thank you very much for the review. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)