Talk:Frente de Liberación Homosexual/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 10:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this soon. Thanks, Urve (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. Below are my comments:

According to Héctor Anabitarte, the FLH began during an afternoon meeting in August 1971 at the home of Pepe Bianco - is it known how his home came to be used? was he involved with FLH members, an academic? if it's not known, that's ok - but if it is, then it would be a good addition
Rather than identity politics, the group's activism was largely centered around class struggle - this is indeed what the source says, but it may also be useful to cite the book rather than a review - your call. if the intention is eventually FAC, I would recommend it, because reviews are less reliable
Juan José Hernández provided - may be useful to indicate "member Juan..."; we are told he joined the group earlier but the name could be forgotten
believed that a connection between Peronism and the FLH was a desirable possibility - any reason as to why this was the thought?
during this period was lobbying in an attempt to influence public policy - any successes? I imagine no, but wonder if the sources say anything
At both the Cámpora inauguration and the return of Perón, the FLH was somewhat separate from the rest of the crowd, with other groups remaining a few meters away from them on all sides - not really sure what this means - it may be too idiomatic for encylcopedic writing
The group effectively disbanded shortly afterward - we learn in a later section that they disbanded because of political repression; could we mention that here?
The use of multiple capitalization styles was a recognizable characteristic - can you explain this? I can't read the Bazán source; is it that capitalization was not uniform in documents, or that it was all caps, or something else?
why is there a section named Homosexuales? I imagine (but can't read the source) that this is because that was the name of the newspaper - is that so? if so, adding the name to this section would be useful
other elements of prose are fine - no paraphrasing concerns, sources are reliable and secondary, they seem to be near-comphrensive on the subject (more than required for GA), compliance with MOS is apparent
Image copyright concerns - File:Frente de Liberación Homosexual.jpg, File:Frente de Liberación Homosexual 1972.jpg, File:Frente de Liberación Homosexual 1973.jpg - these require original publication date at least 20 years ago per the legal documentation on Commons - is this the case for them? I don't see it in the descriptions
{{sfnm}} can also be employed if you'd like, where you have two adjacent citations; doesn't matter either way, it's just what I personally prefer to use because it is cleaner to me
if you want to take this to FAC, it is my observation that further reading lists are discouraged - they should be used in the article if they are relevant to the subject, and if they're not, then they can be culled. in GA this is fine since comprehensiveness is not required.

Will put this on hold till comments are addressed or, if you have any disagreements, we work those out. Thanks, Urve (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urve, thank you for reviewing the article, and for all the feedback! First, the image copyright: File:Frente de Liberación Homosexual.jpg and File:Frente de Liberación Homosexual 1973.jpg were easily established as PD using a scan of the original source which I've linked in the description on Commons. I couldn't find the original source for File:Frente de Liberación Homosexual 1972.jpg online, but I've added another source which corroborates its existence. I reached out to the Commons channel on the Discord for feedback on whether that's satisfactory, and heard that the updated pages for the three images should in theory be enough to establish PD status, but there's a potential URAA issue which I'm still trying to understand (and which Commons guidelines say isn't a stand-alone reason for image deletion, so I think it's fine).

Now the prose feedback. I can't find more info about Bianco, I've cited the book rather than the review, the sources don't really say why Peronism might have been attractive (I'm assuming because it was both populist and popular in Argentina at the time). The sources don't indicate any lobbying successes that I could find, just vague mentions of dialogue as is already included. I've tried to make the thing about other groups remaining a few meters away less idiomatic by contextualizing it as a specific example of a broader concept which I've used the newly added book source to support as well. I've added that the group's dissolution was due to repression, added source-supported context to the line about capitalization styles, and clarified that Homosexuales was indeed the name of the newspaper.

I think I prefer two {{sfn}} over one {{sfnm}}, though I'd probably use the latter if there were ever more than two citations in a row. I've fixed the one instance where a higher-numbered citation came directly before a lower-numbered one, though, since that's been a pet peeve since back when I was just reading Wikipedia and not editing it.

I do plan to aim for FAC eventually, but I'd want to read the sources in the further reading section first and add anything relevant into the article – so I think the list might as well stay for now.

Thanks again for the review and I look forward to your response! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your comments. A beautiful article. Sorrowful, so sorrowful, and riddled with strategic mis-steps, but who has not fallen victim to the same line of thought as these activists? I am convinced this meets the GA criteria, so I have accordingly passed this article. (I believe the copyright concerns have been answered, but this is not an area I am not familiar with.) Congratulations and best of luck in the future. I hope we come across one another soon and often. Urve (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I hope the same! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]