Talk:Lincoln Legion of Lesbians
Latest comment: 4 years ago by The Squirrel Conspiracy in topic Did you know nomination
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Lincoln Legion of Lesbians appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 June 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Lincoln Legion of Lesbians were at the center of "a vibrant lesbian feminist community in Lincoln, Nebraska in the late 1970s"? Source: Barbara DiBernard in Queer Girls in Class
- ALT1:... that the Lincoln Legion of Lesbians were a collective of lesbian separatists in Nebraska? Source: Lincoln Journal, April 22, 1981, pg 12
- ALT2:... ... that the Lincoln Legion of Lesbians, a lesbian separatist collective in Nebraska, tried to outlaw anti-gay discrimination in 1980? Source: Lincoln Journal, August 6, 1980, pg 9
Created by Jno.skinner (talk). Self-nominated at 20:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC).
Looks great, just a few issues. The following sentence is not very clear: "Members of the collective sometimes clashed with men who were excluded from or kicked out of their events." Did they clash with men, who as a result were subsequently excluded from their events, or did they exclude men who wanted to participate, leading to the clashes? Also, it would be great if it was clarified what the "gay rights amendment" was proposing. Finally, where is your WP:QPQ (or are you exempt)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you King of Hearts! I can indeed clear up both of the sentences you bring up and will start working on it now. I wasn't aware of the QPQ policy, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I don't yet know if I am exempt and my attempts to navigate the DYK process have been a little confusing so far, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- How many DYKs do you have so far? If it's fewer than 5, then QPQ is not required. Otherwise, you should review someone else's nomination on WP:DYKN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is only my second time submitting a DYK, so it seems I am exempt. Thank you for the information! I've made some wording changes to the article per your suggestions! Let me know if you have more feeback. Jno.skinner (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- How many DYKs do you have so far? If it's fewer than 5, then QPQ is not required. Otherwise, you should review someone else's nomination on WP:DYKN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you King of Hearts! I can indeed clear up both of the sentences you bring up and will start working on it now. I wasn't aware of the QPQ policy, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I don't yet know if I am exempt and my attempts to navigate the DYK process have been a little confusing so far, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
| 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 |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Looks good! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)