Redirect to:
Automated Peer Review and comments
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
- This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Misplaced Pages:Image use policy and fit under one of the Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Misplaced Pages, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
- If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.
- You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
This looks pretty good. Though like the automated review said, the article is a little short. The lead is short, but then so is the article right now. I would give it a B- but our system does not have those. That's not to say it's bad. This is good. However the article is just barely not a stub.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ira Pauly
The quote used in the article is, to me at least, a bit confusing. My understanding is that he means homosexual in the sense that he's of the tradition that discusses/discussed sexual orientation in terms of birth sex, not the final assignation. If that's the case, perhaps a brief note should be added to that effect, because otherwise it sounds at odds with "eventually" acknowledging the existence etc. (If I'm incoherent, sorry--it's really late/early for me.) Miscellanium (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)