Talk:Homosexuals Anonymous/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MartinPoulter (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Some initial comments that I'd like to see addressed before a full review. My initial reaction is that this is a generally well-written and extensively sourced article on an interesting and notable topic.

• Some quotes in the footnotes are very long, sometimes to no purpose. Note 14 tells us that HA is modelled after AA- do we need that in the form of a verbatim quote? The quote in Note 2 needs to be summarised in the article rather than reproduced at length verbatim. Note 25 is a huge quotation: the second and third paragraphs are either superfluous (in which case they need to go) or important (in which case they need to be summarised in the article). Similar concerns apply to note 34.
• In note 19, HA is described as the "largest antigay fundamentalist counseling organization in the world". Note 12 describes HA as "the largest fundamentalist organization in the world with a unitary antigay focus". This makes HA sound more interesting than the lede suggests. Surely such a superlative is worth including in the article, maybe even in the lede?
• "Despite his inability to control the homosexual desires" seems too interpretive. Would sound more neutral to delete some words and have "Despite his 1974 defrocking..."
• I question the use of the site truthwinsout.org as a reference (notes 20, 22, 23). There are plenty of opportunities to quote Besen's opinions from his books. Similarly, claims found on pathinfo.org shouldn't be presented as fact: say that PATH lists HA as an affiliate on its web site. (third party source found)
• Use the publisher= attribute to indicate the publishers of these sites; especially Refs 7, 13 and 14.
• The first mentions of Soulforce and Truth Wins Out need to explain what they are. The first sentence about Soulforce in the Criticism section could be split into two.
• Isn't the full name Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship Services? Maybe include this in the lede?

MartinPoulter (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On further review, my impression is that there are sourcing issues preventing this from getting to GA, but that it is within hailing distance. The article is bland compared to its own footnotes and sources, and the impression is given that it has been watered down. As an example, three independent sources describe the conversion therapy, and HA in particular, as a outgrowth of modern Christian fundamentalism, so why didn't that f-word appear in the article when it was submitted? Above all, the article needs to depend more on third-party references rather than the web sites of the parties involved. A particular example of this is that the statements of professional bodies representing a scientific consensus need to be given a greater weight (I've tried to correct this myself). They were merely used to define conversion therapy when in fact they expressed a strong position on its merits.

The excessively long footnotes (mentioned above) also need to be addressed. If the wording of the paragraphs is particularly contentious and likely to be challenged, then the content can be moved into article talk.

If there's no immanent prospect of the article being improved in this way, then it should fail GA so that the improvements can be made in future. On the other hand, if the contributors are willing to improve it in the way described, it should be put on hold to give them a chance. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I note the discussion in prior Talk about the relevance of the general statements about conversion therapy. It's often necessary, as in this case, to have a background paragraph to explain to newcomers what field a project or organisation works in, rather than assume the reader already knows. When the organisation is involved in medicine or therapy, it would be irresponsible of Wikipedia to describe it and quote from its advocates without describing a scientific consensus about that field. Hence a discussion of the merits of conversion therapy is needed for the article, so long as the comments are not misrepresented as specifically being a reaction to HA. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Some background from the nominator

Hi Martin... Firstly, my apologies for not responding sooner. I saw your edits to the article a couple of days ago, and am unsure how I missed the appearance of a GA review on the talk page when it must have appeared on my Watchlist; in any case, the good news is I have now found it. :) To help you to understand how the article ended up in its present state, please allow me to sketch some history.

I first discovered this article when it appearead as a DYK nomination, and my first comment expressed serious concerns about the article. For your reference, this is the 17 November version of the article, prior to my making any edits. If you read the complete DYK thread (here as at its move into the DYK queues), you can see the objections raised, the expansion I wrote, and my getting a DYK credit. The article talk page discussions, which spilled over to the no original research noticeboard and to suggestions of WP:SYNTH-violations, illustrate the problems in developing this article. The long quotes in the refs are partly to allow a reader to judge the content for themselves, and to demonstrate that the article's statements are supported. I agree the article has a "watered down" feel, but it is still a massive improvement on where it started.

In nominating the article for GA, I was looking for other perspectives and your response to date points the way forward, so thank you. I am willing to work on improving the article for a few days to see how much progress I can make, if that is satisfactory. Hopefully this history makes it clearer how the article ended up as it is... when even mentioning the APA was opposed, making progress on identifying the use of conversion therapy seemed like progress. I look forward to your further thoughts. EdChem (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I see that the version from 17 November had terrible problems, so thanks for your major improvements. I'm not here to assess the improvements per se, but just to compare the article's current state to GA standard. Only after writing my review did I skim over past Talk, and I endorse the direction you've been pushing the article.

The Julie Jones ref (note 4 in present version) is an academic source explicitly connecting the subject of the article to the condemnation of conversion therapy by professional bodies. That in itself should settle the debate about the relevance of those sources.

I repeat that this is in hailing distance of GA; just not there yet. I urge you to move the long quotes into article Talk for reference by other editors, but make sure what their content is summarised in the article. If interesting facts from multiple sources appear in the footnotes but not the article itself, that strikes a reader as odd. Then again, lengthy personal opinions shouldn't appear in the footnotes either. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. I do recognise that GA's must meet a certain standard, and I wouldn't want to suggest that the history should influence whether or not the article is passed. I merely meant it as context explaining how it came to be the way it is presently. I note the edits you made in the last few days and I agree with almost all of them. Certainly the Julie Jones reference is an excellent addition. Perhaps the approach I took to get the article throuhg DYK was not the best and I think it is worth trying to cut back on the quotations in the references, but I am a little concerned about potentially stirring up disagreement. Anyway, we'll see how it goes in the next few days. EdChem (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? It looks like there's been little activity in the past month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to close as fail. I think the article is very close to GA standard and I don't buy that information on the founder's subsequent career is irrelevant to the article. However, there are problems with the sourcing of some statements and the nominator is not available to take part for personal reasons (according to a message on my talk page). I feel he should be given a chance to address the criticisms, but in a subsequent nomination. MartinPoulter 13:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)