- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 [1].
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a transgender teenager living in Ohio who committed suicide in 2014, attracting international attention. It is not a particularly long article but it is comprehensive and has been GA-rated since October 2015. Some additional tweaking and formatting has since taken place, and I believe that it is worthy of Featured Article status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there needs to be an ALT text for the infobox image. ALT text should also be applied for the rest of the images in the article.
- I would suggest using Leelah Alcorn’s full first name in the caption for the infobox image.
- In the quote box in the “Life” section, I would suggest clearly marking that it is a part of her suicide note.
- In the sentence about the Boston Globe’s response to the sucide note, I would recommend saying the writer’s name (Maura Johnston) rather than referencing the entire newspaper as a while.
- I think the caption for the memorial/vigil image should include the year (and ideally the month if known) to better contextually it for the reader.
This is a very wonderful and important article; it was an interesting read (not to sound belittling or inappropriate). I only have a few relatively minor notes, and I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your suggestions and kind comments, Aoba47. I am glad that you found the article to be of interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
I've read the article two times and didn't find anything to change. About the prose, I can say the article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and focused. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review[edit]
- Thanks Nikki. I've changed the licensing tag to the one that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and support from Gerda[edit]
Thank you for the article! Only minor comments:
General
- Perhaps I am the only one, but two, maximum three refs for one fact would do it for me. If I see four and more, I don't know where to look ;)
- I have trimmed a few of the four-reference blocks down to three. There are a few cases where I have avoided doing so because it would entail losing a reference altogether (i.e. all of the references appear only once in the article or are 'primary sources'). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- I am not too familiar with he/she in her case, but "she was raised" sounds wrong because those who raised her raised him. Saying "she" when talking about her from age 14, when she came out as a girl, sounds right.
- I think that that would conflict with MOS:Identity, which I have tried to adhere to here. I also think that readers might be confused if we switch between gender pronouns in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would not be the only case where I disagree with the MOS. Can we find perhaps a different approach: using the given name? saying "raised the child"? Ideas welcome. I'd agree to moving that to the "life" section, see below. - When a person changes a name, such as a woman by marriage, we don't use the later name from the beginning, only after the change happened. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be cautious about trying to evade all use of gender pronouns in these earlier sentences; I think that that could end up coming across as very clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "conservative Christian" - in German that would not be equal to "fundamentalist Christian", so the piped link seems a bit like an Easter egg. If it was fundamentalist, then say so.
- I would mention the names of her parents, and the birth name, already in the sentence about birth.
- I have added her birth name but am not convinced that the names of her parents really need to be mentioned here. They are mentioned in the very next sentence and I am concerned that moving their names in the opening sentence of paragraph two would overly lengthen that sentence. Happy to discuss this issue further, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How about moving the names of the parents away from the lead and create a "normal" beginning of "Life": given name, born where, parents, raised? - The lead should summarize the body, not replace it. ---GA
- Given that a lot of the debate around the topic has involved Cara and Doug Alcorn, I think it appropriate that we retain their names in the lead. If we were to remove those names, then I believe that we might not be summarising in the article in a manner in accordance with WP:Lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support names of the parents in the lead, but think of something more chronological for the beginning of the body, please consider:
- Alcorn was born to Cara and Doug Alcorn as one of several children. Assigned male at birth, the baby was given the name Joshua Ryan Alcorn. She eventually rejected this forename, and in her suicide note signed "(Leelah)
Josh Alcorn". The family attended the Northeast Church of Christ in Cincinnati, a conservative Christian environment, and had been featured in a profile of that church published in a 2011 article in The Christian Chronicle.
- Unless we don't even mention suicide (it's in the lead) and signature that early. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Christian beliefs" - how about "Christian belief" or Christian values?
Life
- Churches of Christ - I suggest to mention that in the lead, instead of the link to Christian fundamentalism, because it's a specific kind of Christianity which explains the stance of the parents better than general "Christian".
- I don't think the link for God is needed after having mentioned Christianity a few times.
- The link goes to God in Christianity rather than the God article. I think that it might be worth retaining, particularly for readers who may come from societies where Christianity is not a dominant religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I mean. After having talked about Christianity a few time, it should be clear that God in the context means God in Christianity. A link seems rather distracting attention, imo. ---GA
- "but there "only got more Christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong ..." - that is no sentence, due to the combination of prose and quote.
- I've added "but there—according to her—" just before the quote; do you think that this deals with the situation?Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- not quite, the quote lacks a subject, - some "I" needs to be added before the quotation, - better word it completely different, perhaps one sentence with the fact, another for her reaction. ---GA
- I've reworded the sentence as you suggest, removing all instances of "I". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (new) The quote block should be moved higher, not appearing after age 16. ---GA
- "Aged sixteen, she requested that she be allowed to undergo transition treatment, but was denied permission: "I felt hopeless, that I was just going to look like a man in drag for the rest of my life. ..." - The quote is unprepared as her reaction to the denied permission, we don't even know who's saying "I" at the beginning.
- I've added "in her words" before the quote. 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Could her school be mentioned sooner, not when she leaves it?
- "There, she revealed that while her parents had never physically assaulted her, "they always talked to me in a very derogatory tone" " - the mix of "her" and "me" leaves me a bit uneasy, grammar-wise.
-
- it includes another "her" which the parents would not not have supported. Better leave "me", - perhaps a ":" before the quote explains enough, relating to "she revealed". ---GA
- "that overlooks Interstate 71" - what does it mean? other than "crosses I-71"?
Death
- Could her home be mentioned sooner than after her death?
Criticism of Alcorn's parents
- How about simply: Alcorn's parents? - There's a lot about what they did, not only criticism.
- "stating that she had banned Leelah's internet access" - you can't say that right after "stated that she had never heard her child use the name "Leelah".
- I'm not sure how to rephrase this without the sentence feeling clunky. At present it reads "but defended her actions in dealing with her child, stating that she had banned Leelah's internet access to prevent her accessing "inappropriate" things." If we remove "Leelah" then we might to replace it with "her child", which will create duplication; if we if we use "her" it again could get a little confusing as there are two females in the sentence. We could use "her daughter" but that presents us with similar problems to using "Leelah" (i.e. it is not a term recognised by the mother). I think that the current wording is thus the best option available, unless you can think of anything that allows us to remove "Leelah" without resulting in any of these other problems? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say "but defended her actions in dealing with her child, stating for example that she had banned internet access to prevent access to 'inappropriate" things'." Once it's clear that it is about her child, we don't need any repetition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've altered this section by adding the wording that you have proposed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leelah's Law
- I could imagine an image of Obama with less smile as more appropriate to the tragic situation.
- All of the close-up photos of Obama (that I can find) have him smiling in one form or another. This image was taken in 2012, which is closer to the date of Alcorn's death (2014) than some of the other images. I can certainly keep looking, but still think that the close-up official portraits are better than other options that can be found on the Obama article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked, and found many images of Obama, indeed most smiling, but the official 2009 image looks more thoughtful, - I wouldn't mind the little difference in time, for expression. ---GA
Again: thank you for the account told in factual engaging prose! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments, Gerda! I will let you know when I have made my way through all of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented on everything; feel free to get back to me if you find any of my responses unsatisfactory. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for responses and actions, most of them convincing. One is missing just above Leelah's Law. I'll get back to it after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that I missed your responses for days, and thank you for detailed explanations and many changes that I like. Little is left, one small question is new. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem, Gerda. I think that I have now dealt with each one of your concerns. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever you want to use of the last suggestions, I support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This FAC has been open for two and a half weeks and has received three statements of support. All concerns raised have been dealt with. Unless there are any further comments forthcoming then it might be worth considering upgrading the article as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Have we had a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put in a request for one at WT:FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]
- ref #4 missing article date: April 10, 2015.
- Added date (although from looking at the link, it appears to be December 30, 2014 rather than April 10, 2015). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ref #6, #7, #12, #18, #35, #38 missing retrieval date
- ref #20 retrieval date follows different date format
- ref #32 missing article date: January 4, 2015
- ref #40, #68 article date follows different date format
- ref #60 missing author: Zoe Mintz
- ref #64 missing author: Mitch Kellaway
All the sources seem to be reliable. Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What you've done all looks good. I guess just adding the accessdate to ref #6, #7, #12, #18, #35, #38 is all that's left. Cheers. Moisejp (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Super, the source review now passes! Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
