# Talk:Society for Human Rights

{{AFC submission}}
This review was failed as per guidance via Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, the article wasn't broad in its coverage, and was concentrating more on the founder (to which there is also an article for) rather than the main article on the organisation. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Please read the entire text in the pink box - the box itself is a template which according to the guidelines is to be used.  In the box it states "This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see tips on how to better format your article".  That information in itself is sufficient to state why it has been failed.  While I was reviewing the article, and after I had read it all, I knew more about Henry Gerber, than the society itself - there is not much context explaining the organization.  As the article is about an organization, then it should be concentrating mainly on that, and the founder second.  How much more information do you require me to supply, the above says it all. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to this section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Suitability in the box, 3rd from the bottom, is the template which was used, along with a brief explanation to what it means, and to what purpose it is used. Hope this helps clarify some doubtful areas. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Society for Human Rights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review. 19:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


### Initial comments
From an initial couple of read-throughs, the article appears to be well-referenced and probably at or about GA-level. So I will not be quick-failing this candidate.
I will now carry out further detailed checking of the article against WP:WIAGA. This will be undertaken section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, to try and ascertain whether it is GA-material. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
At this point I'm just going to concentrate on "problems", the good points, etc, will be picked up at the end of the review.

Henry Gerber -
The first sentence is vague/ambiguent:- "family" could be parents, dependants, or both. Having read the Henry Gerber main article, he would have been 21 at the time of his emigration: this sentence needs clarification.
The sources only say "family" and do not specify the familial relationship.
Vagueness/ambiguity: In Europe, WW I started in 1914. The second sentence has him in a mental hospital in 1917; then with the advent of WW I, he is in Germany!
Clarified that his enlistment followed the US's entry into WWI.
Fourth sentence is vague/ambiguent:- Gerber was in Germany at least twice: once before be emigrated to the US and secondly during WW I. Sentence order would tend to suggest that he meet Hirshfeld during WW I, but amending Paragraph 175 hardly appears to be of important during wartime.
Added dates of service in Germany, 1920-1923. The German gay scene was very active following the war.
It would be helpful to state when Gerber completed his military service and returned to the US.
Added service dates.
Founding the Society -
Second paragraph. The statement: "Society members were still surprised that no one with the state investigated any further before issuing the charter." is unreferenced (and undated).
Cited.
Murdoch and Price appears as an in line-citation (with a page number) in Notes  but it does not appear as a Reference in Sources, so it is undefined.
Oops. Added reference information.
I would suggest that the last two paragraphs aren't really concerned with Founding the Society, they are more about developing or expanding the society (which as we know from the next section, did not come to pass).
I'm not clear what the issue is here. It seems reasonable to include the information under that heading rather than split it off into a separate "Expanding the Society" or whatever section. Otto4711 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Demise -
Appears to be compliant.
Legacy -
Appears to be compliant.
WP:Lead -
A bit short, but possibly adequate.


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well-referenced article on a short-lived society.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
A well-referenced article
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
A well-referenced article
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
There are no Images.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
There are no Images
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort. Otto4711 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)