Talk:Proseminar in Homophile Studies/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 22:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at this! — Ghost River 22:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lede

"Fall semester" → "fall semester"

done

"It became a visible target" for what?

for politics as suggested by the following clause, but reworded

Background

WL University of Nebraska–Lincoln in the body as well as the lede

done

close paraphrasing with director of the clinical training program in psychology, needs some slight rewording per WP:LIMITED

reworded

"he was listed" → "Crompton was listed"

done

Pipe "gay rights" to LGBT movement

Gay rights is not a movement. But if I understand your point correctly (homophile movement maps onto the LGBT movement), these are not the same thing and it is anachronistic. The homophile movement -- a term that Crompton continued to use despite it falling out of favor for gay -- was concerned largely with gay men of a particular political persuasion (conservative), with lesbians and bisexuals on the periphery of the movement (if at all), and trans people not discussed. I'll do this if you insist but it feels quite out of place in the context of the article.

A source should be included directly after the quote "procedure involved in the homophile course", per WP:INTEGRITY

done

"Apparently" → "Per Milan Wall of the Lincoln Star,"

done with amendment (jargon)

"requested that control of the course"

this is a bridge verb so it is grammatically correct, but amended. see articles like Śmiecińska, Joanna (1 January 2007). "On Bridge Requirements in English". Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 43 (1). doi:10.2478/v10010-007-0008-1. - this might ultimately be an ENGVAR or individual speaker difference

"said it would be seriously considered" → "said the request would be seriously considered"

done with amendment to remove the word "request(ed)" from being in the same sentence twice

"department with Cole as its coordinator" → "department, with Cole acting as its coordinator"

done

"the course's purpose is" → "the purpose of the course was"

done

"including through" → "through use of"

done

Political reactions

The course was controversial. Expand on this just in the topic sentence: controversial among whom?

done

said it was "not necessary" Clarify that the course was not necessary, not interfering with the course

done

Add (NIMH) acronym after the full sentence

why? the acronym is never used in the article

"senator" should be capitalized when referring to an individual
WL Terry Carpenter

done

"suggesting that the hearing"

bridge verb but done

"On the final day of hearings"

done

"in addition to introducing" → "and would additionally introduce"

done with amendment (do not like adverbs)

"approval and prohibit" → "approval, as well as prohibit"

I do not like this comma so I have clarified (what I believe you intended this to do) another way.

"not only suit for study" → "not only suitable for study"

done

Aftermath

"before the legislature" → "before legislature" OR "before the state legislature"

I think this is obvious from context - the previous section's last paragraph is about his testimony at the state legislature. The first suggestion is not how the legislature is referred to in Nebraska (I have never heard omission of "the"). The second one is redundant.

"Two other bills by Terry" → "Two other bills by Carpenter"

done

Pipe "student newspaper" to The Daily Nebraskan

done

References

"Nebraska U" should be the work, not the publisher, with the publisher being "University of Nebraska-Lincoln"

UNL archives is a better publisher IMO; done

General comments

One photo, properly licensed and relevant to the article

It's quite amazing that a Wikimedian was able to photograph Crompton while alive, and so close to the date of the course, offering it to us to use!!

No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good at 14.5%

Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions. — Ghost River 22:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GhostRiver Done most of the above; explained what I did not do, or what I did differently than suggested. Urve (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urve Two more comments:

I am asking you to add the link to LGBT movement because Gay rights redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory. The article on LGBT movements covers historical ones as well as contemporary, and has an entire subhead devoted to the Homophile movement, so I do not believe it is anachronistic.
The discrepancy between "before legislature" and "before the legislature" appears to be done state by state. Pennsylvania exclusively uses the phrase "before legislature", hence my assumption that that was the universally proper terminology. My apologies. — Ghost River 22:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, my friend. Thanks for the explanation. I'll think about the gay rights issue. As for legislature, that's very interesting. Pennsylvania must be like the UK - an act of Parliament, not the Parliament, etc. Appreciate your time! Urve (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]