Talk:Proseminar in Homophile Studies

Syllabus and other sources
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. Urve (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Homophile course, correspondence, Peter McGrath, 1969-1970
 * 2) Homophile course, correspondence, 1970
 * 3) Homophile course, steering committee, 1970-1971
 * 4) Homophile course, chairman’s advisory committee, minutes, 1970, Jan. 22
 * 5) Homophile course, syllabus, 1970, Fall
 * 6) Homophile course, prerequisites
 * 7) Homophile course, designated texts, bibliography
 * 8) Homophile course, topics list
 * 9) Homophile course, tentative schedule
 * 10) Homophile course, staff, professional participants
 * 11) Homophile course, registration statistics, 1970
 * 12) Homophile course, participant questionnaires, 1970 RESTRICTED
 * 13) Homophile course, correspondence, Evelyn Hooker, 1970-1971
 * 14) Homophile course, correspondence, other institution faculty, 1970
 * 15) Homophile course, proposed revision, James Cole, 1970-1971

Julia Penelope
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)

FAC
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 &#183; 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)