Talk:Queers Read This

Did you know nomination

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 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that roughly 15,000 copies of the anonymously published essay "Queers Read This" were distributed at the June 1990 New York Gay Pride Parade?
  • ALT1: ... that Queer Nation, a group focused on combating violence against LGBT people through direct action, established its reputation by distributing the anonymously published essay "Queers Read This"?
  • Reviewed: Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

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)

GA Review

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)

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

Hello, I have reviewed this article and will provide notes that I made below. B3251_(talk) 03:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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.