Jump to content

Talk:Cisnormativity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Western gender binary

[edit]

What is a "western" gender binary? Is it different to the east? Can we drop the word "Western"? 67.83.108.122 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done; it makes more sense without it and it isn't the place for commentary on where a gender binary does or does not apply - though I'll note that the gender binary is most certainly not restricted to the West. Crossroads -talk- 23:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I had it like that is quite simply that that's what the source says. I'm not that attached to that nuance, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cisnormativity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FenrisAureus (talk · contribs) 11:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

Last updated: 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC) by Maddy from Celeste

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
Sources spot checked for reliability and NOR:
Ref # pass/fail
4  Pass
15  Pass
16  Pass
23  Pass
28  Pass
FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
Earwig score 2% similarity. [1] Plagarism highly unlikely. — FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall: Looks good to me. Pass.FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Full body scanners

[edit]

It might be worth adding something to the article in the consequences section about those TSA Full body Scanners. See: Full body scanner#Treatment of transgender people and the bibliography of this video for sources on the topic.— FenrisAureus (she/they) (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]