Talk:Stonewall Inn/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 23:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 07:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

didn't realize you had sent this to GAN! i'll keep my promise that i'd review it :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Review

• I've done some small copyediting & minor edits to wikilinks and the like. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• These observers also said that almost all of the lesbians at Stonewall were butch-femmes. Could this be clarified? Butch-femme is a redirect to the general concept of Butch-Femme subculture, so it doesn't tell me much about the actual lesbians who were attending the bar. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, I must have misread the source. Almost all of the interviewees said Stonewall's female clientele were largely butch lesbians (though one observer said she saw femme lesbians as well, that was an outlier). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• No issues with prose, MOS, or stability. Some of the images' captions don't have dates, which would be a good thing to add. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Spot-checked the main sources, particularly Carter 2004, the Landmarks Commission, and the NRHP forms; no issues found. All of the sources seem perfectly reliable - it's a sea of green from the scripts I use. No OR or copyvio found ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• As for broadness, the article doesn't leave me with any big questions & hits all the aspects I'd expect to see on a building article. It would be easy for this article to spend copious paragraphs on the riots, but it doesn't, so kudos. Also no issues with copious detail or granular coverage. Re image captions, since I don't have any other issues, I just did that myself. I've read through the article multiple times looking for issues, but once again we have a banger from Mr. Genius ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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.