Talk:Gay and Lesbian Teachers and Students Association

Invitation to Wiki Loves Pride

	Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's LGBT+ articles. Please consider joining Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related coverage. If you would like to join us, please add your name to this list of participants to indicate your support and receive future notices related to Wiki Loves Pride! Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on the article

This article represents an incredible amount of research, with over 100 references, covering a wide range of subtopics related to GaLTaS. Currently, there are 8 main sections.

• Background and political response -- these could form a history section.
• Media representation and Workshops/Conf -- these activity sections make sense
• Breach of Duty and Dismissals -- these could form a legal activity section
• Gallery -- move these images to relevant accompanying text within the article
• Legacy -- suitable section IMO
• Repeal -- this section doesn't mention GaLTaS, so the opening and text should at least weave in their involvement

Two related issues -- some sections could have their own articles (or maybe they do?) and there's an intense level of detail. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:UNDUE, which has NPOV aspects? Also, the article felt like TMI. While this could be resolved by cutting out details, another resolution is to create parent to child articles. See Wikipedia:Summary style and, if you agree that this is a concern, Wikipedia:Splitting. Details in a child article are much more tolerable than in its parent article. Splitting would help preserve the writing and detailed research you've done. Of course, it will only work for subtopics that have notability.

NPOV -- some of the writing seems to favor the LGBTQ+ advocacy POV. For this, I think it'd benefit from some editing by uninvolved editors. Likewise, it'd help to have copy editing for Wikipedia:TERSE here.

To further improve the article, it'd be important to revise the opening paragraph, at least after some of the bigger issues are addressed, e.g., moving some of that into the history section.

There are more than 30 mentions of Jaqui Griffin and Derek Williams. Considering that you have a (mild) COI with at least Williams, I think these mentions can be cut back (as aspect of detail) or info put into their articles.

Hope this feedback is useful. Kudos to User:Chrisdevelop on the dedication and hard work needed to put this article together. ProfGray (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeal of religious exemptions -- this section has content that could fit, I suspect, in LGBT rights in Australia#Religious exemptions. Or maybe create a child article on religious exemptions. Otherwise, this content is many years after GaLTaS and could look like a Wikipedia:Content fork. ProfGray (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick response to say many thanks for your detailed feedback, with some great suggestions. I’ll respond again in detail once I have had a chance to go through them all. If you’re watching this article, then presumably notifications will come to you as the updates are added. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Super. Let me add something. When we copy text from one article to another, we're supposed to document it in the Edit Comment and maybe in a Talk Page. Here's an example of my attempt at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_studies&diff=prev&oldid=1217684995 If you follow some of my suggestions, you will probably be doing this. For info, see: Wikipedia:Merging. ProfGray (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

In response to your suggestions so far:

• Moved ‘Gallery’ images to a new section ‘Political demonstrations’, which on reflection is what they all were anyway.
• Thinned out and reorganised Lede, moving more detailed aspects to the opening paragraph of a new ‘History’ section, which now incorporates the Timeline, with some sections such as Gay gang murders given their own subsection, and existing ones moved to subsections.
• Re WP:NPOV, reversed final sentence syntax in paragraph 3 of ‘Repeal of religious exemptions’ to make religious opposition the main topic of the sentence.
• In paragraph 2 of Tsakalos case, add dialogue ref between GaLTaS and Green, to make it clearer that GaLTaS was the prime mover throughout the case
• Supplied page numbers in the Rasmussen citation where GaLTaS is discussed in detail, and its representatives quoted
• To further address WP:Undue, moved ‘Media representation’ to below lawsuits and lead with the entirely negative coverage by Sydney Daily Telegraph, especially that of Miranda Devine, and their allegation that LGBT+ students brought it upon themselves.
• Grouped all lawsuits under a new section ‘Legal Activity’

Comments:

Re ‘balance’, it is obviously important to avoid false balance, e.g. as though the differing viewpoints on the Holocaust between Jews and Nazis are of equally weighted merit. Likewise, by consensus there isn’t a ‘balance’ between slave owners and slaves, nor between oppressors and the oppressed; thus I have retained representation of the changes in government policy towards bullied LGBT+ students as ‘advances’, rather than ‘points of view’.

Re the number of times Williams and Griffin are mentioned in the article, they are quoted at length in almost every cited article, broadcast and publication as major players in GaLTaS, so it is challenging to delete them. Nevertheless, I will try to reduce the number of mentions going forward.

Will work on the ‘Repeal’ section next but for now, I hope this is progress! Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, more power to you!

My top recommendation was to cut back the size of the article, by removing details or moving them to "child" articles. So far, size has increased. While I can imagine this may be difficult for you to cut it down by yourself, I'm guessing that will be needed to get a higher assessment and move it toward Good Article status. Best wishes, ProfGray (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for promptly replying. Yes, I see all too well that has happened, primarily as the result of introducing negative press coverage from the tabloid Daily Telegraph. The GaLTaS article was itself originally a ‘child’ of the Williams article, and it grew legs, thanks to my propensity for verbosity and relentless citations. I agree the Repeal section is most eligible for orphaning since it currently lacks direct correlation to GaLTaS other than in its legacy aspects. Will look into this next. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)