Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Minorities Research Group

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was completed. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities Research Group[edit]

I have added copious references and I am hoping to get this to GA. Please Help!!!

Fluffball70 22:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You add cites after a full stop, not before. I know it's a hard habit to break, but you'll have to eventually. LuciferMorgan 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please review {{citeweb}} for the website sources used to cite the article. LuciferMorgan 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks! The references have all been moved outside the ... and the web links are all cited...What happens now? ??? Fluffball70 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some context and structure issues...

It was founded in response to an article in magazine "Twentieth Century". For such an important article (it founded the group) there is information missing here. What was the name of the article? Who wrote it, and when? What did it say?
In spite of how the Dilys Rowe article would be viewed in the present day, it prompted an interest in research into lesbian (and bisexual) lives. Okay, so the author is now known. But that should be attached to the last section. Also, how would the article be viewed today? Was it patronising, rude, sensationalist?
According to the Manual of Style, the into should summarise info expanded upon in the main body of text. However the first section jumps straight into the in the media section. In order to understand why the MRG was important I need to know some context, what was the social and legal status of lesbians in Britain around 1963? (Its implied later on that they had it rough, but it helps to discuss that at the begining). What impact did it have? I suggest a section on those sections, and more information about what I mention above. That would help me understand how this group came about better and why they were important.

I hope that helps a bit. I'll keep an eye on this Peer review and try and suggest more thoughts later on. Good luck. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just noticed that the 1963ish article I was asking about is down at the bottom. That section should be moved up to explain the context of the group's formation. I also made some minor formatting changes per WP:MOS. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]