# Talk:Proseminar in Homophile Studies

Syllabus available here. Primary source documents are also available at the UNL archives through request. Urve (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am currently talking to the archives. They may have a directory of materials in the Crompton papers collection -- though that's not yet available (online or otherwise) -- so I will update with more information when it's available. Urve (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Stored under number RG 12-10-55, these are the materials.

Homophile course, correspondence, Peter McGrath, 1969-1970
Homophile course, correspondence, 1970
Homophile course, steering committee, 1970-1971
Homophile course, chairman’s advisory committee, minutes, 1970, Jan. 22
Homophile course, syllabus, 1970, Fall
Homophile course, prerequisites
Homophile course, designated texts, bibliography
Homophile course, topics list
Homophile course, tentative schedule
Homophile course, staff, professional participants
Homophile course, registration statistics, 1970
Homophile course, participant questionnaires, 1970 RESTRICTED
Homophile course, correspondence, Evelyn Hooker, 1970-1971
Homophile course, correspondence, other institution faculty, 1970
Homophile course, proposed revision, James Cole, 1970-1971
Urve (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Julia Penelope offered the first class in lesbian novels in the country at UNL. It does not appear to be linked to the proseminar in secondary sources, so I have omitted it for now. However, I am reaching out to some archives and sources that should know more. Urve (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

For whoever cares: This is almost certainly true based on my research and communication with others, but not presently verifiable. Urve (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Proseminar in Homophile Studies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 22:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I can take a look at this! — GhostRiver 22:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


### Lede
"Fall semester" → "fall semester"
done
"It became a visible target" for what?
for politics as suggested by the following clause, but reworded


### Background
WL University of Nebraska–Lincoln in the body as well as the lede
done
close paraphrasing with director of the clinical training program in psychology, needs some slight rewording per WP:LIMITED
reworded
"he was listed" → "Crompton was listed"
done
Pipe "gay rights" to LGBT movement
Gay rights is not a movement. But if I understand your point correctly (homophile movement maps onto the LGBT movement), these are not the same thing and it is anachronistic. The homophile movement -- a term that Crompton continued to use despite it falling out of favor for gay -- was concerned largely with gay men of a particular political persuasion (conservative), with lesbians and bisexuals on the periphery of the movement (if at all), and trans people not discussed. I'll do this if you insist but it feels quite out of place in the context of the article.
A source should be included directly after the quote "procedure involved in the homophile course", per WP:INTEGRITY
done
"Apparently" → "Per Milan Wall of the Lincoln Star,"
done with amendment (jargon)
"requested that control of the course"
this is a bridge verb so it is grammatically correct, but amended. see articles like Śmiecińska, Joanna (1 January 2007). "On Bridge Requirements in English". Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 43 (1). doi:10.2478/v10010-007-0008-1. - this might ultimately be an ENGVAR or individual speaker difference
"said it would be seriously considered" → "said the request would be seriously considered"
done with amendment to remove the word "request(ed)" from being in the same sentence twice
"department with Cole as its coordinator" → "department, with Cole acting as its coordinator"
done
"the course's purpose is" → "the purpose of the course was"
done
"including through" → "through use of"
done


### Political reactions
The course was controversial. Expand on this just in the topic sentence: controversial among whom?
done
said it was "not necessary" Clarify that the course was not necessary, not interfering with the course
done
Add (NIMH) acronym after the full sentence
why? the acronym is never used in the article
"senator" should be capitalized when referring to an individual
WL Terry Carpenter
done
"suggesting that the hearing"
bridge verb but done
"On the final day of hearings"
done
"in addition to introducing" → "and would additionally introduce"
done with amendment (do not like adverbs)
"approval and prohibit" → "approval, as well as prohibit"
I do not like this comma so I have clarified (what I believe you intended this to do) another way.
"not only suit for study" → "not only suitable for study"
done


### Aftermath
"before the legislature" → "before legislature" OR "before the state legislature"
I think this is obvious from context - the previous section's last paragraph is about his testimony at the state legislature. The first suggestion is not how the legislature is referred to in Nebraska (I have never heard omission of "the"). The second one is redundant.
"Two other bills by Terry" → "Two other bills by Carpenter"
done
Pipe "student newspaper" to The Daily Nebraskan
done


### References
"Nebraska U" should be the work, not the publisher, with the publisher being "University of Nebraska-Lincoln"
UNL archives is a better publisher IMO; done


### General comments
One photo, properly licensed and relevant to the article
It's quite amazing that a Wikimedian was able to photograph Crompton while alive, and so close to the date of the course, offering it to us to use!!
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good at 14.5%
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions. — GhostRiver 22:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

GhostRiver Done most of the above; explained what I did not do, or what I did differently than suggested. Urve (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Urve Two more comments:
I am asking you to add the link to LGBT movement because Gay rights redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory. The article on LGBT movements covers historical ones as well as contemporary, and has an entire subhead devoted to the Homophile movement, so I do not believe it is anachronistic.
The discrepancy between "before legislature" and "before the legislature" appears to be done state by state. Pennsylvania exclusively uses the phrase "before legislature", hence my assumption that that was the universally proper terminology. My apologies. — GhostRiver 22:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries at all, my friend. Thanks for the explanation. I'll think about the gay rights issue. As for legislature, that's very interesting. Pennsylvania must be like the UK - an act of Parliament, not the Parliament, etc. Appreciate your time!  Urve (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Urve sorry that your FAC was not successful. Have you considered WP:GOCE/REQ? I've found that they can improve the prose of an article substantially and head off prose-related objections at FAC. Unfortunately, the turnaround time looks quite long at present. (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I considered it. Nobody had ever said there was an issue with prose, so I thought it was okay. I'm not interested in having another peer review open for months without comments or having a copyedit if I'll just get more opaque and unactionable feedback at FAC. I've removed this page from my watchlist.  Urve (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)