Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Same-sex marriage in Spain

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

---

Same-sex marriage in Spain

This article has experimented great changes in the last couple of months. It's already a GA, it has received much attention from the LGBT wiki project (meriting an A-class rating), it has undergone peer review and two thorough copyeditings by different editors, including a final proofread. With almost 40 inline citations, I believe it is ready for FA now. Self-nomination. Raystorm 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• (SEE BELOW)OBJECT. While there is a nice amount of citations so far, there are many assertions and statements that are unreferenced, and don't meet up to 1(c) Many of the current citations are not complete, lacking publishing/author information. Spanish language sources should be identified as being in Spanish (their titles while they may indicate Spanish content, don't explicitly warn the reader). Also, a couple of sections (e.g. Flaw and Opposition court challenges) are practically stub-length and are better incorporated into the article text rather than existing on their own. Per 2(b) I don't like the heirarchical structure of the sections, I think they're rather sloppy in their arrangement and narrative arc. The section divisions appear almost arbitrary. Also, all of the sections need to be better named. For example: Flaw doesn't mean anything to me, or succinctly convey what the section about. Marriage numbers should renamed to something like Statistics. The writing, per 1(a) is not brilliant or compelling, as it is rather choppy and in several areas reads like it was written by someone for whom English is not their primary language and/or that their grasp of English is minimally proficient. It needs a thorough copyedit and correction of many grammatical and orthographical errors (a "well-written" article, I believe, means we should use (e.g.) were not instead of contraction weren't as the contraction is rather informal and unprofessional, and from a linguistic point of view, colloquial). There are far too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded or be incorporated into bigger paragraphs. I don't think we need an infobox in the section named Ratification of Law 13/2005 to summarize the flaw's promulgation and introduction dates, etc. I do not think it offers anything to the article. Further, I think the lead needs to be improved, per WP:LEAD and 2(a). Image captions need to be more captivating and better summaries of their pictures (per Wikipedia:Captions and 3). I think the lack of a succinct, captivating image caption for both of the map images detract from their usefulness. Lastly, remove the size/pixel parameters of the thumbnail images to accomodate user preferences per WP:MOS and WP:IUP. The placement of images also throws off the aesthetic balance of the article, and with a variety of several resolutions and user preferences causes stacking issues. On the plus side, this article covers a controversial topic and seems to be relatively stable and neutral meeting criteria 1(d) and 1(e).—ExplorerCDT 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also think the Same-Sex Marriage template ({{SSM}}) at the top right corner of the article would be better served redesigned in a horizontal format and placed at the bottom of the article, and that the lead have an image showing protests, or a marriage ceremony, but that's only a personal aesthetic, and I posit it only as a suggestion, not a demand. That would draw readers like me into reading more. —ExplorerCDT 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So you have issues with 1a (even though the article has been copyedited twice and proofread by members of the League of Copyeditors. I'll send it again and tell them their efforts were not appreciated here), 1c (which I find really hard to believe -could you please give specific examples of the 'many statements' that are unreferenced?), 2a (which can be easily fixed) and 2b ('sloppy' is really vague, but I'll see how this can be addressed. Be aware also that those 2 stub-like sections you mentioned will increase their lenght when the Costitutional challenge results are known. They will not remain stub-like for long). The rest can be easily addressed.

About the images...I'll try to find someone with more experience dealing with the issues you've raised, but frankly, I think there's a strong subjective element in the objections you raised. What is not captivating for you may be captivating for someone else. However, as I said I'll find someone to deal with this issue.

This article might become a FA or not. However, I'd like to ask for some minimal courtesy/respect when reviewing it. It definitely wouldn't have made it this far if written by editors whose grasp of English is minimally proficient. You just took the easy way -this article is about a Spanish law, it must have been solely written by Spaniards who barely speak English. That's neither true nor fair.

I'll address the changes asap. Cheers Raystorm 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: 1(a): I don't think it was adequately copyedited, as there are still glaring grammatical and orthographic problems throughout the entire text. 1(c). Look through the article and you'll find several paragraphs without a single citation, and several asserted facts which may be controversial or challenged. Would you prefer I tag each with a {{citation needed}}? 2(b). I don't think i'm being vague at all. images: neither do I think I'm being subjective, much less strongly so. the criteria says the prose must be brilliant and compelling. I established why I don't feel it is, and that captions should adequately summarize the image per the criteria I pointed you to, Wikipedia:Captions, which I also, sufficently established. I've provided you and this article all the due respect, and stated my critique of the article objectively. First, accusations of my being "subjective" and baseless attempts to ascribe that I acted with racist "motives" are uncalled for, and second, if you can't/won't/don't accept the criticism, then you ought not to have exposed yourself to it in the first place by nominating an article for FAC. We aren't a rubber stamp or a means of boosting an editor's self-esteem, nor should you expect a free pass. —ExplorerCDT 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY #2: I added about a dozen {{citation needed}} tags to the article, per above. —ExplorerCDT 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Further Comment: The abundance of Spanish-language sources make it difficult for readers like me (who speak several other languages but not Spanish) or readers who only speak English to verify some of the cited material, violating the spirit of WP:V. After all, while this may be a Spain-related subject, this is the English Wikipedia. Please try to find comparable sources to verify this information that are accessible to those who do not speak Spanish, preferably in English. —ExplorerCDT 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In looking through the verifiability page, I see no requirement that the sources must be in English. In fact, it says clearly: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. This, to me, indicates that foreign citations are acceptable if English language citations are not available, or not of the same quality as the original language reference. Jeffpw 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• that's why i asked for them to "try to find some comparable sources" and only commented in this regard....not as a reason for my objection. —ExplorerCDT 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa! Who said anything about racist comments or accusations? I merely commented your review, I thought I was allowed to address it. I've already undergone a peer review, accepting criticism and acting upon it is not an issue. The manner in which the criticsm is stated may be. I'm not editing an article to boost my self-esteem nor expect a free pass here. Can we concentrate on the article now instead of the editors? I said I'd address the issues pointed above. Cheers Raystorm 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: You wrote: You just took the easy way -this article is about a Spanish law, it must have been solely written by Spaniards who barely speak English. That's neither true nor fair. This is a light accusation of racism and a false attribution of motive, and such an ad hominem is wholly "uncalled for." I was focusing on the article, but you compelled me to respond when you loosely threw around seemingly racist accusations and proceeded to dismiss my constructive, criteria-based criticisms as "subjective"—implying that it justified your ignoring them (or passing them off to someone else). —ExplorerCDT 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm not discussing that anymore. If you believe I've offended you, I apologize. It certainly was not my intention. I made an assumption (not a racist accussation, I did not expect you to take it as such because I did not intend it as such), and so did you. Sorry. Let's move on. I've added all the references you asked for. Tried to find as many as possible in English, but some were just better in Spanish, or there simply were no English citations available. I'll tackle the sections next. Will merge the Flaw section, but I believe the Court one should remain as it is for now, until the additional info I mentioned before can be added. Does this make sense? Cheers Raystorm 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe that there are not any comparable English-language source materials available when this issue was well covered by the Associated Press, Reuters and UPI and major UK and US news outfits. —ExplorerCDT 07:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it was covered by English sources. That's why, out of 49 refs, 25 are in English. However, the level of detail of some potential English sources was in quite a few cases very poor compared to Spanish ones. It was very hard to find English sources that commented the ratification process, for example, but there were more than enough about the approval of the law and even Vatican opposition. English sources are always the priority, but they're not always the best. Cheers and thanks for the feedback Raystorm 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - While I do think this is an excellent article, I must say I agree with Expplorer about the references. There are many paragraphs without refs. Given how much research you have done on this, I don';t think it should be very hard for you to add the refs requested. I see it has been copy edited since the last time I read it, so I think the prose is fine. I note from your talk page that a member of the LoC looked it over and couldn't find much to improve. And can we focus on the article itself, and not personalities, please? If you want to hash out differences, please take it to a talk page. Jeffpw 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• References have been added. Better now? Raystorm 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - Citation issues seem to have been addressed. And I think the prose is not objectionable. Jeffpw 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So that's one editor saying there are prose issues and another that the prose is not objectionable and has been adequately addressed. What now? Wait for a third opinion? Raystorm 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait for consensus to develop. FAC can sometimes take a few weeks, It's a lot different than GA. Jeffpw 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate answer: per WP:FAC instructions, you make a good faith effort to address all objections. Just because one reviewer didn't see an issue, doesn't mean it's not there. You can "wait for consensus to develop", but if you aren't addressing objections in the meantime, consensus is more likely to go against your article's candidacy. Arguing with good-faith reviewers doesn't often yield good results - it takes a lot of effort to help some articles get to FA status, and responding with good faith to reviewer's efforts to help you is the fastest way to get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

~You can see I'm trying to address all comments asap, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you have more comments about the article I'll be happy to hear them. I'm already fixing the refs per your request (see below). Cheers Raystorm 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I only meant not to sit around and wait for consensus, since that could result in a negative outcome - I didn't agree with the advice Jeffpw was giving you, and wanted to make sure you knew to actively work on addressing valid objections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment sentences that could do with citations:

• "The experts' opinions were diverse: some stated that gay adoption had no effect on a childs' development (except for perhaps a higher tolerance towards homosexuality)."
• "This judge disagreed with his colleague’s decision and gave preference to the right of marriage over the fact that Argentine law did not allow same-sex marriage."
• "According to the instructions provided by the Ministry of Justice (Dirección General de Registros y Notariado), Spanish Consulates abroad are entitled to carry the preliminary tramitation for a same-sex marriage."
• "On 21 July, 2005, a judge from the city of Denia refused to issue a marriage licence to a lesbian couple."
• "Children born within a lesbian marriage could not be legally recognized by the non-biological mother, who still had to undergo a time and resource consuming process of adoption."

The lead is also inadequate: it should sum up the entire article, but does not mention the legal flaw or marriage statistics. A little more history could be included as well.

I am not much of a prose writer, but I do feel there may be slight prose issues on reading the text. You may want to get one more copyeditor in just in case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The references you asked for have been provided. I've already asked at the League of Copyeditors for more help with the article, and one member is already going over the article. Included a sentence about marriage statistics in the lead. Flaw section has been merged into history section. I've also reorganised the order of the sections. Cheers Raystorm 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied that this article is fully referenced, so good job there. Fix the lead to reflect the article's contents, and change this sentence "With the final approval of the law on 2 July — including royal assent and publication in the Boletín Oficial del Estado — Spain became the third country in the world to formally legalise same-sex marriages nationwide, after the Netherlands and Belgium." into something that you could read aloud without problems, and I'll support. For future articles, what you may find helpful is to print off a hard copy of the article and read it aloud to yourself, correcting it wherever you find it difficult to read smoothly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on the lead. I'll change that sentence right now. And I appreciate your advice, but I haven't got access to a printer. :-) Cheers Raystorm 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it look better now? Raystorm 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is OK. As you add more to the article, don't forget to update the lead though! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comoment refs 6 and 52 need proper formatting. All refs not in English should use the "language=Spanish" parameter.Rlevse 03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raystorm 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comments from the copy-editor:
  • Same sex marriages were illegal in Autonomous Communities, as only the State has the power to legislate marriage in Spain. Awkward tension between "were" and "has".
  • ...that allowed unmarried couples of any sex to enjoy some local benefits Such as? What were these local benefits?
  • he would endorse the law that was being debated in the Cortes Generales Isn't text that is being debated not yet a law? Isn't "bill" the more appropriate word here?
  • ...who refused to sign the Belgian law on abortion Please explain. Belgian law banning abortion? Legalizing abortion?
  • The king of Spain would later give his Royal Assent to the law. Date?
  • owing to both judges' lack of standing to file them How come? Quite vague.
  • The conservative People's Party decided to initiate a separate constitutional challenge, causing divisions within the party. When? What's the status?
  • This marriage would be valid according to Spanish law, but did not imply automatic validity according to the foreigner's national law. A bit confusing...is this trying to say that the marriage would not be automatically valid in the foreigner's country? If so, it needs rewording for clarity.
  • In the future, please avoid stuff like: [[October 1|1 October]]. This breaks the date formatting preferences of users. Just leave it as October 1 or 1 October.
  • What's a "tramitation"?
  • At least one member of the couple must be a Spanish citizen, resident in the Consular demarcation. Huh?
  • Two non-resident foreigners cannot marry in Spain Does this mean that resident foreigners can?
  • I don't see any particular need for the discussion of Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands at the end of the "Residency issues" section.
  • Please clean up your references. I spotted the odd extra brackets here and there. Also, although not required, since you're using citation templates, it might be best to use the "language" parameter to indicate sources in Spanish. Gzkn 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most of your concerns have been addressed now. The refs I fixed while you finished copyediting the article, I even had a conflic edit with you. :)

• • • Refs could use {{es_icon}} (in Spanish) I'll read the Spanish sources for verifiability if/when the referencing issues are cleaned up and the article is copyedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object 1c and 1a. (a few 1b concerns remain) Refs use inconsistent date formats, and news sources aren't correctly formatted (see examples at WP:CITET). Authors aren't identified on all news sources (examples [1] [2] [3]) - please see WP:CITET for correct formatting on news sources, including italicized name on newspaper. Some links are dead (example La sentencia que concede la adopción a una pareja de lesbianas desata un intenso debate social - and others). Please use a consistent format throughout refs, including dates. Once refs are cleaned up, I will read sources for WP:V. Also, prose issues: for example, is Autonomous communities of Spain capitalized or not? (Pls be consistent.) What does "There are several marriage statistics available up to the first year of the law" add to the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll address your concerns asap. The dead link only had a bug, it's fixed now. The marriage statistics sentence makes mention to its corresponing section. Another editor requested that some mention of it be made at the lead. Raystorm 04:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • More - per WP:MOS, non-English terms should be italicized (e.g.; Instituto Opina). Is Minister of Justice capitalized or not (use is not consistent). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Addressed. Raystorm 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by addressed - the marriage statistics sentence still has no context in the lead, autonomous communities is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, haven't checked everything else. By the way, quotes are not italicized (see WP:MOS) - pls fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant the specific comment under which I had signed. I need time to address everything. Raystorm 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, started through your refs as you said they were addressed: authors are still not added on news sources, which are not correctly formatted. (Please see WP:CITE or WP:CITET for samples.) Your second reference listed is incorrect - it's the St. Petersburg Times. I'll check back in a few days to see if refs are cleaned up, and then read the article and verify sources. Please pick a consistent date format on your references and stick with it, add authors on all news sources, and use a correct and consistent style for biblio sources - if your links go dead, we need to be able to find your sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Raystorm 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I failed to mention that the reason your news sources are incorrectly formatted is that, while cite web formats websources correctly, cite news should be used for news sources like El Mundo, El Pais, BBC, etc. Converting them (and adding author when available) will solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already began addressing that problem. Might take me a few days to go through all the refs checking them though. Please be patient. Cheers Raystorm 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Back for a second look

• The "infobox" at the top of the article isn't an infobox per se, and goes against WP:GTL - it's only a collection of See also links. It should be converted to a horizontal See also template to go at the bottom (as other See also templates do), since it is nothing more than a See also collection. It doesn't seem to be functioning as most infoboxes do, which give information other than See also links; it has not a single entry that isn't a See also link. The infobox in the section, Ratification of Law 13/2005, should be at the top of the article, since it is an infobox pertaining to this article, while the See also "infobox" should be converted to a horizontal See also template, so it can be used according to GTL, at the bottom of relevant articles. The width on the Legislation infobox could be also less - these large boxes are taking over Wiki. (Law and Supreme Court Projects have standard infoboxes - see Roe v. Wade - has this article been run through WikiProject Law to make sure it meets all guidelines (see 2 at WP:WIAFA).
• I ran through a small sampling of the refs and am still finding inconsistencies and missing info - can you have a look at the changes I made, and run through the rest to double check? (I suspect that {{es_icon}} doesn't work in cite news, and has to be added manually at the end of the cite.) Date formats should be consistent, author names given when available, etc. (Just a note - not an objection - Yahoo news sources tend to go dead quickly, so if you can find an alternate source now it will help in the long run.)
• I'm pretty sure Cortes Generales (and all foreign phrases) are supposed to be italicized, but check WP:MOS
• This statement seems to need more context (which unfortunately doesn't seem to be available in the sources given):

• In March 2006, Pedro Zerolo, a senior government official, announced that more than 1,000 same-sex couples had married. Eight hundred marriages were recorded in the fully computerized areas (about half the country) and at least 200 were estimated in the rest of the country. Zerolo also said that 10% of all marriages in Spain were between same-sex couples.

• The time frame on the marriages he's discussing isn't at all clear in the source. Did he announce that in March, or did he mean that there were 1,000 marriages during the month of March? If so, that seems incredibly low - which portion of the country is he discussing? Without some context, the statement may be biased. Ten % of all marriages during what time frame and in what part of the country? Right after the law passed, or on an ongoing basis?

• The article structure and references are much improved: I'll print the article and read it tonight, noting that ce concerns are still raised above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I've asked for help changing the infoboxes' templates (I don't know how to do that). Curiously, I did what you said (put the legislation infobox at the top and the LGBT one more at the bottom), but I was asked at peer review to change it back, because it was visually more pleasing.

Yikes, since someone actually asked for it, I'm un-striking my comment above, so the reasoning for not including a large See also list in the infobox-lead is legible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the date formats so they were consistent. Were they not? I'll add manually the es icon. I still have refs to go through, I gave priority to newspaper ones. And yeah, yahoo is kind of a bother, but I don't mind checking periodically those links. I'll try to find alternate sources though.
• I've italicized foreign phrases. They escaped my notice because they were wiki linked. :)
• Now, the Zerolo source. I'm not too sure about what you mean. The source is dated 2 March 2006. So it cannot mean only the month of March. In fact, the first line of the article is: Since same-sex marriage became legal in Spain last year more than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples have wed a high-ranking government official said Thursday. Which means exactly that, since the law was passed until the last day they had figures for (probably, some day in the end of February). Now, the law became effective in July 3 2005. 1,000 marriages may not seem like a high number (from July to March, not included), but you gotta take into account that getting the paperwork ready a marriage (any marriage) takes about 3 months (I'll never find a source for this statement, but it's generally true). There were several marriages that were performed really soon after the law was passed, true. We had a really interesting debate about this topic in the articles' talk page. Why should there be high figures shortly after the law was passed? People like to plan their weddings, get everything ready, etc. There's no reason to believe this won't be true for homosexuals. In fact, I expected there'd be a significant increase beginning June 2006 -simply because people like to get married in Summer. These are social conditions that aren't easily (or accurately) predicted.

Err, I digress. :) Sorry. Let's see, you ask if he means all of Spain or only some parts. Well, he means 800 in the areas that are computerized, and 200 estimated marriages in the areas that are not. In the previous sentence there's a source which includes a list of places that are computerized. We're talking about half of the country, and this is mentioned in the article. 10% in those areas since the law was passed until the last day in February they had data for, and what they estimate (based in their data) from the areas that are not computerized. To be honest, I think it's pretty clear (in the article, not here!), but I'll add an extra line just in case.

Cheers and thanks for your feedback. Raystorm 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Rereading the paragraph, I think I can understand why the 10% sentence might be a bit confusing. I'll change it for something more clear. The infoboxes have been changed, btw. Cheers Raystorm 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

PS2: I can't believe this. I changed the date formats in the refs, and now they've changed back? Sigh. I'll change them again. Raystorm 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I get it. I know what happened. It's the difference between adding [[ ]] to the dates or not. Okay. I can fix it quick enough. Raystorm 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better on the infobox and template - kudos for getting it done so fast - I worry about the precedents set with some of the gynormous new confangled infoboxes, and the new version looks quite good and conforms better with guidelines. Ack - on the 1,000 issue, I completely misread the sentence as saying 1,000 total marriages, which I thought was very strange (low). Glad you understand the dates now - the cite templates are inconsistent and can be very frustrating. I printed the article to read, but I think I'll wait until you've finished your changes and reprint. I'm giving up on the Spanish language icon - sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, it's Greek to me, not worth worrying about <grrrr ...> Dates now look consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting, and will now be prepared to support the article if the third paragraph of the lead is expanded a bit more (one or two sentences - not crazy about a two-sentence para in the lead, and there is more that can be said), and if Opabinia's concerns have been met. It's looking good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit the third paragraph of the lead. Better now? I believe Opabinia's concers have been met, but I'm still waiting for his/her comments regarding the changes (and I don't feel too confortable knocking on his/her talkpage to prod him/her to check it out). Aside from that, a tiny curious question: I saw you struck out the infoboxes concern the other day, but now it's been unstruck again. Is this an oversight, or you want me to fiddle with the infoboxes further? :) Thanks for the copyediting, btw! Cheers Raystorm 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Ahh, I've read why you unstruck that comment. Okay then (sorry, I failed to see it among the discussion). :) Raystorm 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Opabinia would be fine with you leaving her a note - it's common to ask Objectors to re-visit after you've addressed concerns, and it's hard for active reviewers to remember everything they need to re-visit. After reading the Spanish wiki article, I left a 1b (comprehensive) list of questions on your talk page - after you review those issues, and Opabinia's, I'll be a Support: IMO, the article now meets 1a and 1c. You might even ask Explorer to have another look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I investigated further and found there is no specific policy against using navigational templates at the top of the article. I still believe the way the article is currently structured is better (infobox at top, navigation of See also article links horizontally at bottom), but it would not be the basis for an object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few changes as per your suggestions, you can check them at the article's history. Raystorm 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comments while I'm not as negative on the prose as ExplorerCDT, this really does need another copyedit, ideally by someone familiar with the material. I corrected an obvious typo, but there's awkward writing in the lead ("Unlike Canada, foreigners...", "...has not been devoid of conflict"), and similar issues in the text itself ("Although it admitted that the existing discrimination...", where "it" is ambiguous between the bill and the Consejo de Estado). A subject I'm not getting a good sense of, as a reader unfamiliar with the history, is how a heavily Catholic country became the third to legalize same-sex marriage; were there no religious objections? The "Reactions" section details polls and such but doesn't get into much detail on the arguments made by the opposition. It'd be particularly worthwhile to cover opposition rationales or organizations that are unique to Spain. All of that said, allow me to strongly disagree that sources ought to be predominantly in English in an article about Spanish law; English sources or links to translations are nice, but by no means necessary. (Noting which sources are Spanish would be useful, however.) Opabinia regalis 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It has just been copyedited, the user that did so even made some comments above. I'm not sure what you mean about there not being religious objections: it is mentioned in the reactions section the Church opposed the measure, but I'll see if I can expand that a bit. There were not that many arguments made by the opposition as you may think: mainly two -the weakening of the term marriage and concern for children adopted by gays, which are mentioned. Nonetheless, I'll see if I can expand that a bit more too. The sources that are in Spanish have a language tag attached. Thanks for your feedback, I'll address everything asap. Cheers Raystorm 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the edit history, my typo fix came after the copyeditor's changes, so the examples I pointed out were still problematic. (On looking again, I also note: "The veto override supposed its definite approval as law" - supposed? I don't think that's what you mean here.) I should've been more specific in the religious objections comment - if this were in the US, I would expect more than a short paragraph on what the Pope said. (Maybe dioceses have more independence in the US, but it seems like local bishops are always sounding off about something.) I would also expect local/grassroots type organizations to have formed in support or opposition, and I don't see that - were there any? Were they notable? What I'm not getting a sense of is how, in a country that is (perceived as) heavily Catholic, a measure strongly opposed by Catholic authorities would be supported by 60ish% of the population. Did any of these polls include reasons offered by respondents? Opabinia regalis 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new paragraph that offers an explanation given by sociologists. I'll research a bit more to see if I can expand it further, because it seems a bit simple, but maybe there really isn't much more to the issue than unstoppable modernisation :-) I'll keep looking. I'm going to add per your request some info about a notable local org that opposed the law and seemed to congregate (along the Church) the opposition. Cheers Raystorm 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How does it look now? Raystorm 15:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support with a couple of minor leftover quibbles, mostly covered by skipping past all of this stuff below and scrolling down to the useful part posted by Yomangani. Please try another phrase for 'not devoid of conflict', which doesn't really say anything (what political process is devoid of conflict?). Also, I know this was partly in response to my comment above, but the comment about how many Spaniards go to mass sounds a bit tangential. Finally, I'm ever-so-glad the infobox got rearranged, but consider prevailing upon the related wikiproject(s) to simplify it a bit; it's very large and garishly colored. (Oh, and I never mind knocking on my talk page, as long as you don't bring a battering ram ;) Opabinia regalis 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do about the 'devoid of conflict' phrase, and I'll struck out the mass sentence. Thanks for your feedback and support :-)

• Support - article has been improved to FA standard in my opinion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Still working on 1b, here are some possibilities that might be mentioned (and some sources that may help replace some of the Spanish-language sources):

• Washington Post - Popular Party spokesperson denied the opportunity to address Parliament following surprise speech by Prime Minister Zapatero and more on the Pope's stance could be covered: [4]
• BBC - Zapatero campaigned to "remove what he called the Church's undeniable advantages and create a secular state with streamlined divorce and relaxations in abortion law." Other explanations for lack of Catholic following in Spain from BBC: "The Church's influence on Spaniards has declined precipitously since the death in 1975 of the dictator General Francisco Franco. His regime was closely linked to the Church. Opinion polls suggest that nearly half of Spaniards now almost never go to mass."
• More explanation from BBC on Catholic church influence and social trends: "The Roman Catholic Church wields great influence in Spain, but the BBC's Katya Adler in Madrid says that since the Madrid bomb attacks in March 2004, Spaniards want unity among their people more than anything. " and more context: "The new legislation is one of a series of social reforms, including faster divorce proceedings, being introduced by Spain's socialist government, led by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero."
• This CNN source says Spanish laws is liberal among other countries - also English-language source for first wedding. NYT says Canada is as liberal - this source is already used, but some context could be given of how Spain's law compares to others.
• Specifics on Vatican position from Times online.

Since there are numerous English-language sources available (which largely say the same thing the Spanish sources say), it may be possible to replace some, per WP:V policy which states preference for English-language sources when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there:

• I've added the BBC explanation about Franco and the church. It's very good. I don't think the one from Adler should be added though: it seems like an opinion from the reporter. A bill isn't approved for the sake of unity, and in fact this law generated quite the stir as can be seen from the demonstrations it provoked. Frankly, I think the March 11 explanation is extremely weak. Spaniards have always had the problem of unity (Catalonia, Basque Country) and have always wanted unity. It's not something new as the article seems to suggest.
• I don't get the 'most liberal' thing. The idea is that the law makes gay and straight civil marriage the same. If other countries have approved gay civil marriage it should be the same as the straight one, right? Unless Spaniards have more rights in civil marriages than other countries, this law isn't most liberal than the others. If 'most liberal' refers to a comparison with countries that have not approved gay marriage, well, then yes it's pretty liberal, but that's obvious right? And the main difference is the possibility of adoption by same-sex couples, which is mentioned in the article.
• I changed the Spanish source for the first gay wedding for the English one. Added more on Vatican's position using an English source that was already in the article. Added the PP denied reply sentence to ratification so it goes with the flow of the article, like the result?

Thank you very much for providing these references. I really appreciate it. :-) Tell me how you think the article looks now ok? Cheers Raystorm 10:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support, article is much improved from the original iteration I saw when this was introduced on FAC. All significant objections I've read above appear to have been addressed; there shouldn't be a problem with Spanish-language sources. (Though English-language sources are obviously preferred, it's not something I think is worth objecting over.) {{Same-sex marriage}} is hideous, but that's not really relevant. —Cuiviénen 05:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support, struck my object above. All referencing and prose issues addressed, and additional material added as needed to address comprehensiveness. (Now you can go show them how to properly reference an article on the Spanish wiki :-) Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I'm still pissed off that when I said something, User:Raystorm tried to make every excuse to avoid my suggestions, comments and criticisms, going to the extent of stubbornly brushing them off as if they weren't valid. At least the article's been fixed adequately, and for that I'll support it....but I do so completely unhappy with my experience in having to fight hand-tooth-and-nail to convince the nominator, User:Raystorm to take care of valid, actionable issues, while watching him/her bend over backwards for others who asked for the very same things. —ExplorerCDT 13:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I hardly think that is the case. Some of your requests were not as easy to address as later comments, and drumming up copy-editors is difficult and time-consuming. Yomangani^talk 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Raystorm asked me to respond to this. I understood your concern early on, Explorer, and I even commented to Raystorm about the tone of initial responses to reviewers. I told Raystorm that, based on the early tone, I had considered not reviewing the article - but I decided I really should, considering I speak Spanish and could verify the sources. Raystorm was also advised by another editor to "wait for consensus to develop" rather than to act on concerns; that advice troubled me, and I posted a note above saying I disagreed - that it's important to address concerns as they arise. Further, we often have situations of editors being told that FAC "is a bitch", so they may naturally be defensive. After these clarifying comments, the tone completely improved, and work got underway. I believe Raystorm then began to address all concerns, aggressively, and thoroughly - perhaps you're still (logically) smarting from the tone of the initial exchanges, as you were the first to comment? After other reviewers got involved, I don't think Raystorm fought "tooth and nail"; rather was cooperative. (And I've seen tooth and nail wikilawyering via verbosity to avoid addressing concerns - look down a few reviews. I usually don't trouble going back to those: if a candidate is proud of a star gleaned via bullying and fan support, so be it :-) FAC can be hard on first-timers, and it can be hard on reviewers as well; it helps if we all remember that articles improve with a give and take. Reviewers are more likely to have "been there, done that", so I believe more burden is upon us to realize what a first-time nominator may be going through. Specifically - in this case - the article had not had outside peer review, and that is always likely to be problematic. The only peer review input came from two Project members, who supported the article. So, after addressing peer review concerns, Raystorm may have felt unjustly under fire, and may have felt the article was ready. I still wish we had stronger instructions here regarding Project member support, as I see too many articles promoted based entirely on fan support, and that's a problem. I would not be proud to be the "owner" of an FA whose only support came from fans or Project members - outside input and evaluation is important. Anyway, the lack of other input at peer review is not Raystorm's fault, and it's not surprising if the early reaction may have led to defensiveness. I hope you two will both be understanding of each other and the process, and be proud of the end result. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's no excuse for User:Raystorm to be the most stubborn resister by far I've experienced in my time reviewing on PR and FAC, and while I don't "smart" from the exchange, I am frustrated simply in that the arrogant presumption User:Raystorm exhibited is among the worst bad faith I've encountered on Wikipedia...especially since anyone who reviews here at length (offering more than the "I like it crowd") usually knows what they're talking about, and it's only to improve the article. Writing off his/her resistence as just the signs of a first time FAC nominator is not an excuse. —ExplorerCDT 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Gosh, Explorer, her initial resistance didn't remotely compare to some of what I've seen at FAC from some extremely arrogant nominators who argue and wikilawyer every point. Well, anyway, I just wanted to give another point of view. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "the article had not had outside peer review" Excuse me, but whose fault was that? The SSM in Spain peer review was listed on the normal peer review, but no-one else bothered to answer it. If we hadn't reviewed it ourselves, likely Raystorm would not have got replies at all - how many "normal" peer reviews have editors reviewing them right now? My last peer review took six days to get a review and only because I went and kicked up a fuss on the talkpage. If the projects don't do it, no-one else will, so I don't think you can act like we're being possessive and crap. I resent the implication that because I'm an LGBT project member, somehow my input is less valuable the yours. The truth is, I don't give a damn about reference formatting (as you well know from my Latter Days FAC), so unsurprisingly I didn't hold out on my support as long as you did. FAC is dominated by people who hold standards that are far in excess of the actual guidelines and many have no concept of politeness. I hate having to go through FACs because of them, but everyone just seems to accept it as being "tough". It's not tough, it's abusive and frankly I am shocked that you can try and blame hard-working WikiProject members for people trying to avoid it by votestacking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't recall saying anything was anyone's fault; no need to inflame this FAC, Dev920, I was trying to calm it down. So much for that idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Accusing me latently of holding LGBT Project membership against you (which I've never done) is almost as bad as Raystorm's latent smack that I was acting with a racist motive when I posited (per policy) that he try to find English sources that were comparable if not better than Spanish sources since this was the English Wikipedia (and he did). Your tone seems to avoid the issues at hand and instead want to paint FAC reviewers as evil just because they might treat you a bit harshly. FA has standards. If you don't want to bring an article up to standards, then you shouldn't consider bringing an article for consideration to include in FA. Just because you worked hard on something does not in any way shape or form mean you get a rubber stamp or a gold star. And saying that people are too harsh or abusive when they're just making reasonable recommendations based on policies, guidelines, and other style instructions or saying that some reviewers demands that exceed the standards is usually the rallying cry of people who want to get by through minimal effort. That was the case here. If we gave you accolades just for trying when you bring things to FAC, FA would be as much a joke as GA is now...where they pass anything, even the most shoddy work. Standards exist for a reason, and it's only natural that they'd be high around here. Only FAC nominators often don't have thick skins and are over-sensitive with their pet projects. —ExplorerCDT 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I was referring to Sandy's comments, not yours. If you think that FAC reviewers are not excessively harsh in their comments at times, than you clearly aren't reading them. It's not about standards, it's about courtesy - I'm going to address a reviewer's comments however they're phrased, why say "The film looks like right trash. ... Can someone tell me why such a story is worth telling in dissociation from the film itself? Is this "among our best"?" Frankly, what the fuck did that have to do with my FAC? Did that help its chances, or tell me where I was going wrong? No. I don't expect molly-coddling at FAC, but people taking pride in being mean or harsh is wrong. And your precious standards are, as I have said before, are higher than anything you will find in WP:WIAFA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I stick to the letter of WP:WIAFA and its collateral policies. No lower. Strict construction. I take pride in keeping the standards where they should be...strict construction of the criteria, policies and guidelines as written. Characterising someone's application of the criteria as "your precious standards" is just sour grapes and being jaded...and in the meanwhile forgetting that we're seeking to improve articles that users think deserve to be part of the image Wikipedia shows to the world. —ExplorerCDT 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well done for proving my point exactly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • And thank you for proving mine. —ExplorerCDT 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support There are some minor points that can be quickly cleared up but which don't merit an objection in my opinion. It would still benefit from another copy-edit and there are some odd or unreferenced statements:

The ratification of this law has not been devoid of conflict, despite strong support from Spaniards - suggests to me that all Spaniards strongly support it. Perhaps a qualifier would help here.

The whole paragraph about adoption seems to have the wrong subject: ...non-biological mother to recognize children born within a lesbian marriage. Shouldn't it be ...non-biological mother to be recognized as the parent of children born within a lesbian marriage or something similar? I would assume the law recognizes the parent rather than the parent recognizing the child.

Gay rights supporters argued that while the Catholic Church also formally opposed opposite-sex, non-religious marriage, its opposition was not as vocal; for example, the Church did not object to the marriage of Felipe, Prince of Asturias to Letizia Ortiz, who had divorced from a previous civil marriage. - no reference, the example given is not an example of the preceding statement (it is an example of remarriage of a divorcee not of opposing non-religious marriage), and "had divorced from a previous civil marriage" sounds clunky.

Two non-resident foreigners cannot marry in Spain, as at least one of the partners must be a Spanish citizen; two resident foreigners can do so. One sentence paragraph, and yuck. Yomangani^talk 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a qualifier to the support sentence, the adoption sentence is actually right (in Spanish law the non-biological parent has to recognize the child as his/her own, and no further adoption paperwork is required), and I eliminated the one sentence paragraph. I'll see what I can do with the church sentence. Thanks for your feedback and support :-) Raystorm 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.