Wikipedia:Peer review/Proseminar in Homophile Studies/archive1

Proseminar in Homophile Studies

This article deals with the 1970 course by Louis Crompton on society and the homosexual: The Proseminar in Homophile Studies. Described variously at the time as a course about sexual aberration, to a course whose aim was to eradicate homosexuality, to a course about "literary queers" - this was a controversial moment in Nebraskan history. And how fitting, then, is the University to celebrate its 50th anniversary this fall, the same year that a resolution condemning critical race theory also failed.

My intention is to eventually send this off to WP:FAC.

Thanks, Urve (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek

• Lead is a bit bare compared to the rest of the article right now

• Work in progress Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the Background is very long.

• Tidied up Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Crompton being a gay rights activist is more interesting than him being a George Bernard Shaw scholar, so I would recommend restructuring that sentence as "Professionally a scholar on critic GBS, Crompton was also an activist for gay rights and..."

• Agree Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do you know what the board's intent was when they wanted to transfer the course to the psychology department? More oversight?

• Not particularly known, other than Crompton thinking being gay was natural (and probably that he was gay, but this isn't said) Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Course" section could use expansion regarding the content and syllabus of the course, if there's sourcing out there

• Biggest issue I have now, but I will continue to look. I can resort to primary resources if needed but will thoroughly check over what I have compiled again. Urve (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Check out page 2 of The Cambridge Companion to American Gay and Lesbian Literature DanCherek (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks!! I did not search GBooks for "homophile studies" because there is a lot of pollution by an institute - I've checked and don't see any more there. I've tried my hand at fixing up the section; there is not much more to say. I'll keep working on the other items while thinking about this. Urve (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sentence about the gubernatorial election: I think it would help to clarify that we're talking about the governor of Nebraska (it might be inferred but I had to go to their articles myself to confirm)

• wikilinked to the election page - I think saying Tiemann was governor is clear that it's for the state, but open to suggestion Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• De-link the second J. James Exon; don't need to twice specify that he's a Democrat

• done Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• You linked National Institute of Mental Health twice, you can de-link the one under "Political reactions"

• done Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "interdisciplinary problem" Cole meant "problem" in the "academic thing to be studied" sense, not the "bad thing that needs to be dealt with" sense, right?

• yes, I've tried to clarify this Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "By the fall of 1971"; "In the fall of 2021" — watch out for MOS:SEASON issues

• I am using these as references to the academic calendar - I know that "winter" can be ambiguous as a general descriptor, but fall seems clearer to me, and especially in the context of schooling, where fall is usually the latter half of the year. What do you think would be better? I did change out one of these, though; the festival lasts till next year Urve (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This latter class proved uncontroversial" — completely uncontroversial? That's a little surprising to me. I don't have the source but I'm wondering if it needs to be qualified like "largely uncontroversial" or something
• I know the university website says it's celebrating 50 years but it seems strange because it's been 51 years, right?

Nice article overall! If you have time, I also have a peer review open here for what I'm hoping will be my first FAC, and any comments would be appreciated. DanCherek (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! Your comments are helpful and, as much as I've seen your work, insightful as always. Regarding this Penelope class - yes, there's some students that were upset, calling it misandry, so I'll definitely qualify it with some additional sources. I'll also comment on your peer review - I have a couple open reviews that I need to attend to at the moment but I'll also make yours part of that list. Urve (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)