Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Gender role
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Gender role
- Article is no longer a featured article.
The article fails to satisfy Criterion 2a ("compelling, even brilliant" prose). Take, for example, the lead.
- What is "concrete"? If a specific term in the context, it requires immediate glossing.
- I can't quite see the difference between "socially enforced rules and values"; use one or the other, or explain on the spot; and why mark the distinction with "both"?
- "genetic, unconscious, or conscious"—Are the second and third items mutually exclusive in relation to the first?
- "objective" vs. "subjective"—This is wobbly; isn't the distinction between social and psychological? Whatever it is, "objective" and "subjecctive" are unclear.
- Stubby second paragraph.
- "Such creativity"—What creativity? In any case, prefer "this/these" to "such" nowadays.
- "the gender/sex system"—Pluralise for consistency? The same throughout the article (avoids the s/he problem, too).
- "how much"—"the extent to which" would be nicer.
There is much redundancy. There are stubby paragraphs. In terms of macro-structure, why is Talcott Parson's theory given top billing, before the treatment of more overriding features of gender role? It's rather Western-centric, too. When you think about it, the pic of the bagpiper is pretty Western-centric in its assumptions. Fix upper-case initial in a subheading. "However" is often stuck in the middle of sentences (hard work for the readers). Plus much more. Needs a thorough revision.
The comprehensiveness of the article (2b) has been questioned by a contributor on the talk page, who complains that "it is biased against biologism. In fact, it doesn't even have a biologism section ...".
It could do with more inline references (2c); there are many unreferenced phrases such as "Some have argued".
Notice of these problems has been posted on the talk page.
Tony 02:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- "I intend to nominate this as a FARC in a week's time." - but you nominated it the next day.... perhaps a small mistake? Not saying the nomination is invalid though, as it has its problems... It is as it always was T | @ | C 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a mistake at all; since the time factor was removed from the prescribed process here (a move that I strongly disagreed with), there's no definition of 'leave enough time'. Overnight, I decided that 'enough time' is a day. It appeared to be the consensus on the talk page that an interval should not be prescribed.
I should add that I did not nominate this article to prove that point, though, but because the article is deficient. I note that after the notice was posted, one of the contributors has edited the article (by adding a single character space).
Tony 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just some comments. I don't think that the comprehensiveness as raised by the contributor was such a serious problem. The section in question was not quite straight criticism, but more a discussion of the topics. However, the section wasn't posed as so what was being argued was absolutely clear, so that may be the strike against the section, instead of the possibly inaccurate section header.
- As to the time period, it may have been best to wait a week anyway, even after notice was given, just so we wouldn't have the problem of thinking that the rapid nomination to FARC was possibly a "mistake". Dysprosia 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support removal. Not our best work. Rebecca 06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support removal. Article is accurate, but also POV throughout, and poorly written at several points. It's a good article, but not a great one.--Urthogie 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support removal. I find the article an embarrassment to read in structure, style and POV content. Article gets off on the wrong foot by making a category mistake in the very first sentence. A role is not a set of norms. JPF 09:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Does not address the concept of gender role as understood by non-academics (i.e. 99% of people) in any way whatsoever. There are other, more minor instances of glaring POV. These complaints have been repeatedly advanced on the talk page over the past year. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
