Talk:Homosexual transsexual/GA4
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Result This article was failed procedurally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Nominator Comments
[edit]This is the third time this article has been nominated.Talk:Homosexual_transsexual/GA3 I am renominating this because the last nomination was failed, not because of the substance of any of the discussion but because of two second opinions which referred to two one reversion as edit warring. One edit, and one discussed reversion are not edit warring. Then based on that failed the article as "unstable". The edits which prompted that are Mattisse edit summary "provide references that this is a term in psychology". I edited in the following way My edit summary "Reverting to last version by Wandalstrouing, Mattise rm'd the V, RS'd and accepted fact this article is at least partly about psychology." Which I accompanied by comments on the talk page directing them to the sources they wanted, which were already in the article.[1] The edit warring policy says "An 'edit war' occurs when contributors, or groups of contributors, repeatedly [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert revert] each other's contributions," and "Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. " There were NO repeated reversions in fact Mattisse's edits were their first involvement in this article. Look at the revision history. Look at the revisions they ammount to one word being removed, then added, that is not edit warring.
The other issue is one that had been addressed in GA3. The user User:Jokestress has a acknowledged conflict of interest and because of it has recused herself from editing the article, she does not edit it, and discussion on the talk page does not count as instability or reversions... it's just discussion. Which will go on and on. When she raises concerns I try to address them when they are reasonable.
I ask that a GA reviewer will review this article as it is, users User:WhatamIdoing, and myself have worked very hard on this article, just tell us is it good or not. Does it need to make every editor involved with it even COI'd ones with real world agenda's happy?--Hfarmer (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)