Homosexual transsexual edit
- 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 December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
There is an article cleanup tag on this page and I want to know if the quality of the article is such that it can be removed. This is a controversial article. There is currently a POV dispute. I am not looking for anything related to that dispute. Simply is the article good enough to not have a cleanup tag at the top. I am seeking at least two reviews before doing anything. Hfarmer (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment on the Automated peer review. The issues it brings up are not issues. A picture is a non-starter for an article like this. The placement of the citations has consensus. Each claim that has a citation right next to it within a sentence needs it because it is controversial. (Basically if we don't put it there then somone or the other will claim it is uncited. This is the simplest solution IMO). The Don't thing, length of lead etc. All arrived at slowly and painfully by consensus.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply Please read the intructions at the top of the WP:PR page, which says in part "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners ..." which includes the POV dispute as well as cleanup. A WP:RfC may be a better way to get consensus on this. As for the semi-automated peer review, the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:MOS#Images says "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image... ". The length of lead comes from right from WP:LEAD. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking for any input into the POV dispute. I am asking if the article looks good enough to not have the actual cleanup tag on it? It is likely that as controversial as this topic is someone from one side or the other will put a pov tag there. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and when I say a picture is a "non starter". I suppose that's an expression not everyone uses. :-) What I mean is that's not going to happen. Because there is no picture that would ever get consensus of the interested editors here. That's all I mean. --Hfarmer (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources - I took a quick look at the sources to see how accurately they have been used. I choose those related to IQ,as this is likely to be challenged. I was shocked to find that the first two reliable sources do not make this claim. One simply says the Utrecht cohort had a lower IQ than the Canadian one, the next one does not seem to mention IQ and the essay, which I don't consider reliable only says that lower IQ might be a useful predictor in childhood. This is a serious error and if other sources are found not to support "facts" in the article this will be quickly spotted. Many readers do check sources and this is the most important aspect of an article to get right. Graham Colm Talk 11:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply Thankyou for pointing out that the IQ information is not provided plainly and freely in the doccuments that were linked directly to it. I think I was at my univ when I added that info and did not realize that I probaly got to see the article's body because I was using the UNIV's subscription. I have added a reference that was alreayd in the article which has the same information and affirms what is in the references that are alreayd there. The bonus is that this one is free to download. Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance Journal of Psychiatry research. 2005 page 7 colum 2 section 3.8 says."The homosexual group’s mean IQ score (111.2; SD = 16.9; n = 82) was lower ( P b 0.001) than that of the nonhomosexual group (mean = 122.3, S.D. = 17.3, n = 61). There were no differences in IQ scores between the sexes (81 MFs, 62 FMs). Mean scores for the different transsexual subgroups were 107.3 (S.D. = 14.3) for the MF homosexuals (n = 39), 121.7 (S.D. = 17.2) for the MF nonhomosexuals (n = 42), 114.8 (S.D. = 18.4) for the FM homosexuals (n = 43), and 123.7 (S.D. = 17.8) for the FM nonhomosexuals(n = 19)." Thakyou again.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)