Talk:S.T.H.

S.T.H. has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 11, 2021. (Reviewed version).

A fact from S.T.H. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 September 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the founder of the pornography zine S.T.H. once joked that it was "the only gay-sex magazine funded by the U.S. government"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S.T.H..

Wikipedia

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the founder of the pornography zine S.T.H. once joked that it "was the only gay-sex magazine funded by the U.S. government"? Source: n+1
- ALT1:... that the gay pornography zine S.T.H. counted William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Tennessee Williams, and Gore Vidal among its readership? Source: inline in article
- ALT2:... that Gore Vidal once described the gay pornography zine S.T.H. as "one of the best radical papers in the country"? Source: Daily Xtra

Reviewed: Rockaway Beach and Boardwalk

Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

all looks good here - the article is new enough, long enough, no obivous copvios and adequately referenced. I prefer the first hook, ALT0, myself so signing that one off here. And have checked it in the source. Only query there is whether the quotes are really necessary - the source did not put it in quotes, and arguably it's their words rather than his. Not a massive deal though probably. Cheers, and thanks for the good work. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It's a direct quote from the article that is attributed to McDonald, so I believe the way it's formatted is accurate, even if it's not necessarily a directly attributable quote to McDonald. Morgan695 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds fine then. Thanks for the reply. — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: the nominator has stated at WT:DYK that material has been spun off from Boyd McDonald (pornographer). If the material was rewritten, fine, but if it was copied then this new article has to be 5x longer than the copied material per Rule A5. Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a combination of new content, spun-off content, and spun-off content that was rewritten because of copyvio issues. Whether it was a 5x expansion I can't say; is there a script or something to measure? Morgan695 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: you just have to find the copied text and multiply it by 5. If the new article is at least that long, all is well. If you reworded the copied text, all is good too. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: OK, it seems that the article contains 484B of readable prose that was directly copied from Boyd McDonald (pornographer). S.T.H. contains a total of 4955B of readable prose, so I believe it qualifies as a 5x expansion. Morgan695 (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Restoring tick per Amakuru's review. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:S.T.H./GA1. 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)[reply]

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

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 Castiglia, Christopher (2012). If memory serves: Gay men, AIDS, and the promise of the queer past. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816676119. 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 Morgan695 for comments. Urve (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Urve: Thanks again for your review, and your thoughtful comments. Responses to your notes are above. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Morgan695. 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:

{{cite journal|title=S.T.H. |date=1983 |issue=53 |pages=18–19}}

to

{{cite magazine|work=S.T.H. |date=1983 |issue=53 |pages=18–19 |title=Title of article for these pages}}.

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)[reply]