Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stonewall riots


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008.

Stonewall riots

 * Nominator(s): Moni3, Dank55
 * previous FAC

What fun this article was to write. Never will you see so colorful a description of surreal rioting. I had a ball working on it, and I hope you enjoy it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 70 (Christopher Park..) is lacking a last access date.
 * Same for current ref 140 (Dunlap...) and the National Historic landmark nomination ref.
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okeydoke. Got 'em. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - for a well-written, excellently researched and engaging account. I can't see any issues with the images or sources but there are a few disambiguation links that need fixing—according to the checker. Graham Colm Talk 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a disambig for "hustler" that could mean any and all three of those listed in the disambiguation page. Similarly for "lighter fluid" I don't know enough chemistry to decide which one of those is most accurate, and my sources didn't specify. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits Graham, but I've got questions about some of them. "They were the first instances in American history when gays and lesbians publicly protested against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals": well, I wouldn't say that, exactly.  The 1965 Philadephia protest was public, for instance; it just wasn't something the media were interested in.
 * "During the last years of the 1960s, however, many radical political organizations": at the time "radical" was an even more charged word than it is now, and some will complain that calling the entire African American Civil Rights Movement "radical" is POV. I think that's probably why Moni put it the way she did.
 * "Police raids were routine on gay bars": I'd prefer "Police raids on gay bars were routine"
 * "Tensions ... tightened": tensions tightened? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a note in some of the edit summaries to revert any unhelpful suggestions. I didn't like "tensions exploded" perhaps it would be better to find another word for tensions? And, would it be a good idea to mention the the earlier protests? With regard to "radical" is it a non-neutral word? Graham Colm Talk 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm trying "erupted"; possibly trite, but the other ways I would usually try to fix this aren't available here. Spiro Agnew's favorite phrase was "radical liberals", and "radical" has been POV most of the time it's been used in American politics.  I reverted. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I did some copyediting for this article, and found it to be both well-written and exhaustively researched. In other words, it's a Moni3 piece par excellence. Well done! Scartol •  Tok  14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't think I have read an article with better referencing etc. Nice layout too. Dincher (talk)`

Comments I've just copyedited this again. It's very close. I left a bunch of hidden comments about some questions I had. Maralia (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On your blind edits: in an article about how it was necessary for gay people to be secret and there were no places to go, I think it's worth pointing out that organizations like the DOB and Mattachine could only meet in private homes.
 * Hm. Not to split hairs, but do you realize that we haven't explicitly said that about either Mattachine or DOB? Nothing is said in this paragraph about where Mattachine met, and about DOB, we only said that the women met in their living rooms to form it. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Mattachine and the DOB formed in private homes, and met there for the first years of their existences. Let me think of how to incorporate that. If you're sharper than I am right now, Dan, feel free to add it. I'm drawing a spectacular blank. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can add a ref that covers it, Intimate Matters by D'Emilio and Freedman, later tonight. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I take that back, this might not be everything we need. The ref is "D'emilio, John, and Freedman, Estelle B (1988). Intimate Matters, Harper & Row. ISBN 0060158557".  The quote from page 320 is: "During the fifties, these groups struggled to exist, as they operated with scanty resources, no models for how to proceed, and the ever-present threat of police harrassment.  But they did survive, establishing chapters in several cities..."  That's something but it doesn't talk about where they met. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Naw, man. I have the sources (Mattachine: Marucs, p. 24-25 and DOB: Gallo, Marcia (2006). Different Daughters: A History of the Daughters of Bilitis and the rise of the Lesbian Rights Movement, Seal Press. ISBN 1580052525 p. 1-5) but after my little drinking binge there, maybe I can take another look at integrating the fact that both groups formed in private homes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A'ight. I expanded at the pleasure of Maralia. --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be the dirtiest thing anyone has said to me all week. What have you been drinking? Maralia (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Irish cream. But my statement there was a play on presidential appointees who "Serve at the pleasure of the president". If you took it dirty, that's all you, guttertramp. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Elephant Walk Bar in San Francisco was famous in the mid 1970s, in part, for being the first gay bar to have plate glass windows out front. The plywood at the Stonewall was seen as necessary (as reported by my sources) to keep the police either from seeing into the bar from the street, or coming through the windows during a raid. While raids were routine almost down to procedural in the bar, the police didn't necessarily respect the property of bars they were raiding. Having to chop through plywood was a deterrent.
 * Okay. Could we change "to prevent the police from raiding the bar" to "to deter police from raiding the bar"? Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what is causing the confusion in Rejection of gay subculture. If I can explain it here, I will. Just let me know.
 * The section that confused me was this:
 * The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of gay and lesbian subculture developed before Stonewall were denied and forcefully ignored. Historian Martin Duberman writes, "The decades preceding Stonewall ... continue to be regarded by most gays and lesbians as some vast neolithic wasteland". In particular was bar culture, or reflections of secrecy and shame that were developed out of necessity.
 * The last sentence refers to something prior ("in particular was"), but it's not clear what. Additionally, "reflections of" doesn't make any sense to me. Is the gist of this bit (excluding the quote) something like "The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of prior gay and lesbian subculture, such as the bar culture and decades of shame and secrecy, were forcefully ignored and even denied"? I'm not asking you to adopt that phrasing - only trying to understand your intent so I can better explain my confusion. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you nailed it, Maralia. Done! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything else in a blind edit I will be changing here in a moment. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Here are some comments: Not specifically related to this article, but I noticed the 1969 photo of Stonewall Inn was submitted by the "Contact us" OTRS system. Do you know if the New York Public Library submitted it? are they submitting others? or did the photographer submit it? Having this image in the article adds a lot, and it would be good to get others for other articles. --Aude (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is "undersecretary of state" in the first section not capitalized? I believe this is a proper title.  And, who was the Undersecretary of State at the time, who made the statement.  Since you are providing a quote, I suggest being more specific here.
 * "The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which in 1958 ruled that One, Inc. could mail its materials through the U.S. Postal Service." - might it be better to link "the case" or just "case" to the article on that case, rather than liking "went to the Supreme Court"? and the "Supreme Court" could link to the Supreme Court of the United States.
 * "Tthe social repression of the 1950s " - typo there.
 * There are some New York Times citations in the article. Are these articles available online? if so, they should be linked.
 * The sources appear all reliable.
 * Undersecretary capitalized, I think. Maybe I need Dank55's help on that. I don't know. I mean, an office should not be capitalized unless it's a title: The senator from Illinois said... vs. Senator Barack Obama said... similar with "president". Ack! Dan!
 * You're right on the money with "president" and "senator" Moni3, but anything would look slightly awkward here ... undersecretary of State? undersecretary of state?  I'd go with Undersecretary of State X, where X is their last name. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get the guy's name in my source, which is at home right now. Give me 8 hours or so.
 * If only because I wanted the Supreme Court case linked to a larger word than "case". Because "case" linked by itself seems like overlinking. If you want it changed, I can do that, though.
 * I blame the Tt on Maralia's very helpful copyedit *cough* but it's changed.
 * Some of the NYT stories are pay-per-view. Do you still want them linked?
 * I contacted the New York Public Library (Tom Lisanti in the digital collections department) for this article and for the images in Barbara Gittings. I wrote a very humble and almost apologetic email asking for permission to use the images. For Gittings' article, he allowed only two from the Kay Lahusen/Barbara Gittings collection. But he seemed a lot more agreeable to use the Diana Davies image of the Stonewall Inn. So be nice if you contact him. I, however, submitted the actual image to OTRS. Image:Stonewall Inn 1969.jpg I actually uploaded to Wiki, attached it to the permissions given by the NYPL, but an OTRS volunteer also uploaded it to Commons. Li'l bit o' confusion there, but I sent them the image, which is what I think you were asking.
 * Thanks for the review, Aude! --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - With the changes, the article looks good. It's well-written, solidly sourced, etc.  Also, thanks for the answer regarding the NYPL.  I have seen material from Library of Congress and other such sources appear on Flickr, so was hoping the NYPL photos were part of some project (that I was unaware of) to submit content to Wikipedia.  Nonetheless, it's good to see they were willing to help out in this case. --Aude (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the OTRS aspect, Moni3 forwarded us the email with the photo attached, and since I couldn't find it on Wikipedia or Commons anywhere, I uploaded it myself. I probably shouldn't have put the source as the Contact us page, but I like to advertise that wherever possible. :)  howcheng  {chat} 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.