Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

My immediate appraisal is to say this GA nomination is too soon. The event in question occurred only three weeks ago and it's likely that not all the facts are yet known about exactly what happened with the initial arrest, subsequent arrests, and later protests. And we do not know what, if any, effect the event or the subsequent criticism and protests will have going forward. So I don't see how you can write a "good" article about a subject when you don't yet know what the subject actually is.

This is especially evident in the article title. We have no idea whether the events of 7 August will turn out to be the same kind of landmark event that the NYC Stonewall riots turned out to be in the United States, or something less dramatic but still important, or something of no lasting effect at all. (I personally hope that this, or something, turns around the LGBT situation in Poland, but based on the general nationalist/reactionary/etc directions much of the world has been going in the last few years, I'm not overly hopeful.) If Wikipedia had existed on, say, 18 July 1969, would an editor writing an article about what had just happened at the Stonewall Inn have had any idea of what the Stonewall riots would eventually mean? A more apt title for this article would use a question mark, like "Polish Stonewall? Protesters decry government's anti-LGBTQ attitudes" this NBC News headline for an AP story does. As it stands now, the article title seems like something that people hope for, rather than something that is.

In terms of the GACR criteria, these problems affect the neutrality and stability criteria. There has been a fair amount of churn in the article in recent days, with a number of reverts taking place. That's symptomatic of an article about a very recent event. There is also potentially change coming because the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot (activist) may result into a merge into this article.

So while I believe the DYK this article had was appropriate – by definition, DYK items are about new content – I think a GA nomination is too soon. But I am willing to hear an argument to the contrary. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for taking a look at this.
• The facts of the situation are known and the main reporting on them was released within a week of the incident; the most important being the ombudsman's report of 8 August and the Balkan Insight piece (13 August). The main reactions have come in, although it's possible there may be minor updates in future. The only thing that definitely will need updating is what eventually happens to Margot but that is more a question for her bio article (I don't think it will be merged here, per the arguments I made at the discussion) and is tangential to this article. (probably no more than 1 sentence addition, which doesn't seem relevant to stability).
• As for the title, I refer you to Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not: "Article titles are not addressed by the good article criteria. These are discussed at Requested Moves." I know the current title isn't ideal and recommend that, if you have a better suggestion, please post on the talk page. ( t · c) buidhe 23:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I get that for the usual sort of WP name disputes, such as say Talk:Raul Julia#Requested move 26 August 2020 to pick an active one at random, a GA nomination and review can proceed independently of the name resolution. But for this one I don't think it can. Because if you are right that the only future updates to this article will be "minor", then it can't possibly be called Polish Stonewall. As for what I better name would be, maybe Margot arrest protests or 2020 Warsaw LGBT arrests protests or something like that. But the current name is either a violation of WP:POVNAMING or of WP:CRYSTAL, both of which are pretty core policies. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, but mame of article is very controversial. See Talk:Polish_Stonewall#Name. Subtropical-man ( ✉ | en-2) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I am going to fail this GA nomination, as it has been 10 days and no progress is being made in addressing the concerns I listed above. The title is still completely wrong and there is continued instability and edit/tag warring around both this article and the Margot (activist) one. I would suggest the following happen:

1. Get/affirm a consensus regarding whether this article and the Margot one should be combined or separate.
2. Assuming this article goes on, get a consensus on a name for it that does not have "Stonewall" in it and move it.
3. Get the DYK nomination for this article approved (which is currently pending resolution of the name issue).
4. Wait for the article to appear on the main page.
5. See if there are any useful additions/comments on the article from the several thousand views it gets there.
6. Wait a few months.
7. Update the article for the effect of the protests, if any, on the overall LGBT situation in Poland.
8. Renominate the article for GA.

I realize that step 6 may not be followed (but what is the rush?), however in my view all of the other ones should be. Then you can nominate again with a better article and a clean slate. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply