Talk:Queers Read This/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. B3251_(talk) 16:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

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

1. Well-written

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

a. Y List of citations and works cited

b. Y 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. Y No copyright violations/plagiarism

3. Broad in its coverage

a. Y Addresses main aspects of the topic

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

4. Neutral

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

5. Stable

Y Not under any edit wars or dispute

6. Illustrated

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

b. Y 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

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.