Talk:S.T.H./GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 18:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll begin reviewing this soon. Urve (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Some comments from this version:
 * [a] makes a reference to Cum, but the anthology section is later on; would it be helpful to say something like "the anthology Cum" instead of the bare title? It would be useful contextually, since readers don't yet know what it is.
 * Done.
 * "with McDonald once joking" - some find this construction troubling (see here); another way to write this could be Printing costs were paid with McDonald's welfare checks, and McDonald once joked that S.T.H. "was the only gay-sex magazine funded by the US government." or something similar. whether this is a problem for you, you can decide, though
 * Done.
 * Stories were printed under titles that parodied tabloid newspaper headlines - great detail. maybe we can use the example from the source, to illustrate how exactly it is parodied? they give "10 Hawaiian Dongs Unload on Tourist", among others.
 * Added.
 * the source above also says that they parody TV guides - is this worth mentioning, in addition to the newspaper headlines?
 * Added.
 * the quote box is working well for me. some people may find it troubling to have such extended commentary in a quote, but I think it highlights an important view on the zine, and it is not needed to integrate it into the prose, nor is it distracting
 * "not for the upward striving middle class but for guys who like to go down;" - semicolon inside of the quote marks? WP:LQ has some guidance but I don't have access to the original source
 * Fixed.
 * which he saw - Welt or McDonald?
 * Clarified.
 * Ref 23 is incorrect, right? It says a date of 1938... I imagine you mean 1983 but I don't want to change if I'm unsure
 * Fixed.
 * p 171 of has an interesting perspective, maybe we should integrate it here, too? it says that the zine was consciousness-raising, for queers by queers, that it did not tell gay men to "clean up their act" unlike other LGBT journals of the time. it also apparently had a series of "book reviews, and historical vignettes". this is chapter 4, email me if you don't have access to it
 * Added info from source.

That's all. A great article, with the level of detail commensurate with what is available in sources based on my own searches. Nothing on Earwig gives me pause, and the image has a reasonable fair use rationale.

Passing it back to for comments. Urve (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for taking this up for review. I'll respond to your comments in the next day or two. Morgan695 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your review, and your thoughtful comments. Responses to your notes are above. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've passed the article, since it fulfills all of the good article criteria. It's a beautiful look into underground gay life.
 * One small thing, that does not matter for the GA criteria, but should be mentioned anyway. The article is placed in the hidden tracking category Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical, because of reference 24. The reference uses title instead of work for S.T.H., probably intentional because the title is not included. If you are able to update it, that would be helpful - I would have done it myself, but I'm not sure where to access archives for the magazine (if any exist). To update, change:
 * to
 * If you're not able to, that's OK. Again, good work. I hope we come across one another again soon and often. Urve (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're not able to, that's OK. Again, good work. I hope we come across one another again soon and often. Urve (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're not able to, that's OK. Again, good work. I hope we come across one another again soon and often. Urve (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)