Jump to content

Talk:Queers Read This

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeQueers Read This was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that roughly 15,000 copies of the anonymously published essay "Queers Read This" were distributed at the June 1990 New York Gay Pride Parade?

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk10:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: A solid article about an interesting topic. Either hook would work; personally I think the first one is more interesting. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Ezlev (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: B3251 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reviewed this article and will provide notes that I made below. B3251(talk) 03:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Please check 1a, 1b, and 2c.

1. Well-written

[edit]

a. Clear and concise prose

  • In Lead: "...earliest articulations of queer activism and queer theory. Queer theory later elaborated..."
    • Starting off a new sentence with "queer theory" right after ending the last one with the same word makes it pretty awkward. Also, "queer activism" should be changed to "radical queer activism" to better correlate with the line under Reception in which it is referring to. ("...and has frequently been presented as the origin of queer theory and radical queer activism.")
      • I suggest rewording the entire line to "Queers Read This" has continued to receive academic attention. It is widely understood as one of the earliest articulations of radical queer activism and queer theory, the latter of which later elaborated on many of the concepts initially articulated in the essay. Some scholars have critiqued it for criticizing heterosexuality rather than heteronormativity. (with the wikilinks still used, of course)
  • Under Background, consider specifying that the reappropriation was popular among queer people of color, as per the source. This helps avoid any potential confusion.
  • Also under Background, I'm guessing that "this context" in "The evolution of queerness as a concept in the early 1990s was shaped by this context." is referring to the previous text/background? Please clarify so that it's more clear what it means, as it's just a little confusing to understand what "this context" is referring to given that the text starts on a new line.
  • Under Reception, change the full stop in "It was not the first use of the term queer in this context. The word began to be reappropriated in the late 1980s." to a semicolon so that it reads: "It was not the first use of the term queer in this context; the word began to be reappropriated in the late 1980s."

b. MoS compliance

  • Under Reception, change "apparently" to "allegedly" to avoid any potential MOS:DOUBT issues.
  • I highly recommend wikilinking "San Francisco" under Reception.

2. Verifiable with no original research

[edit]

a. checkY List of citations and works cited

b. checkY Sources cited inline

  • Citation #8, I highly recommend using the clipping feature on newspapers.com so that anybody can access the source. I made sure to do that so no need to do so for now, but just a recommendation for citing newspaper sources from that site in the future.

c. No original research

  • Under Background: "The term queer was initially used as a pejorative against LGBT people. [...] in the LGBT community."
    • Unless another source which does specify LGBT people/community in general can be found and used, "LGBT people" and "LGBT community" should be changed to gay people/community as per the source. The source does specifically mention queer activists/POC reappropriating the term so it's otherwise OK.

d. checkY No copyright violations/plagiarism

3. Broad in its coverage

[edit]

a. checkY Addresses main aspects of the topic

b. checkY Focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

4. Neutral

[edit]

checkY Gives due weight to viewpoints presented about "Queers Read This" among various sources

5. Stable

[edit]

checkY Not under any edit wars or dispute

6. Illustrated

[edit]

a. checkY Media have proper copyright statuses attached, valid non-free use rationales provided for non-free images

b. checkY All media are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions


For what it's worth, some of my comments are available at User talk:ezlev/Archives/2024/April#Comments re GAN of Queers Read This. I don't think this is necessarily a barrier to promotion, but I think our article is a bit outdated by saying It is unclear who wrote "Queers Read This". The OutWeek additions in a recent edit are good for giving contemporary coverage of the essay. Urve (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

B3251, Ezlev, where does this review stand. As far as I can see, Ezlev hasn't edited Wikipedia at all for three months as of tomorrow; their last edit on 8 June had the summary nowhere near done with additions and addressing GAN comments, but publishing for now, which would indicate that there is a lot more work to do. Perhaps, if Ezlev can't continue editing, the nomination should be closed as unsuccessful. Once the issues have been addressed, the article could be renominated. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset I totally forgot about this, thanks for letting me know. I'll close as unsuccessful for now. B3251(talk) 16:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.