Wikipedia

Talk:Weinstein Hall occupation

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Epicgenius in topic GA review
Learn more about this page

GA review

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago41 comments2 people in discussion
Passed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weinstein Hall occupation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 21:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 18:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply


Hi, I'll take this soon. Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: Thank you for your review! I think I have addressed all present comments. A note that I do now have a copy of the Marsha P. Johnson biography with pagination, so might be able to add those pages in a bit. Spookyaki (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Spookyaki, thanks for the heads up. I was going to review the refs tomorrow, but I can wait till you add the Johnson biography. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
They're added! Spookyaki (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

edit
This should be a pretty interesting topic. Some of my family went to NYU, and I myself was down there a few weeks ago.
Lead:
  • Para 1: "The Weinstein Hall occupation was a building occupation organized by gay liberation activists to protest the cancellation of gay dances at the Weinstein Hall residence building at New York University." - Is there a way to avoid repetition of the title? Currently, this boils down to "The Weinstein Hall occupation was an occupation [...] at Weinstein Hall" (I know these phrases are quite a distance from each other, but still). I suggest something like "The Weinstein Hall occupation was organized by gay liberation activists to protest the cancellation of gay dances at a residence building at New York University", then explain Weinstein Hall and link building occupation a bit later.
  • Para 1: Shouldn't the year, at least, be mentioned in the first sentence? It seems like this might be a relevant thing to put in the WP:LEADSENTENCE. Right now, the dates aren't mentioned at all until the third sentence, after the Stonewall riots (which happened in 1969) are mentioned, which is a bit awkward to say the least. Come to think of it, can we describe these as the 1969 Stonewall riots?'
  • Para 1: "played games from September 20–25, 1970" - Usually, "played games from September 20 to 25, 1970" is more standard.
  • Para 1: "...with connections forming between lesbians and street queens." - The grammatical construction "X, with Y being Z" (a comma splice with participial phrase) is grammatically awkward. It only works if Z is short and simple. Otherwise, the sentence becomes unwieldy. especially as it introduces a bit of ambiguity as to when these connections happened (unless that was the intent). If possible, I'd mention when these "connections forming between lesbians and street queens" occurred.
  • That's possible, but I don't think this sentence is particularly unwieldy. Its current construction shows the connection between the groups engaging in different activities together and their forming connections. I also think it's pretty obvious that these connections formed over time as the occupation progressed and can't really think of any way to add more information about the timeframe that doesn't make the sentence more awkward. Do you have any suggestions? Spookyaki (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I actually figured out why it sounded strange to me; it wasn't the "X with Y being Z" format, but the passive voice. How about "with lesbians and street queens forming connections"? – Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sounds good to me, done. Spookyaki (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Para 2: "A march through Greenwich Village ensued" - To the reader unfamiliar with NYC, shouldn't we mention that Greenwich Village is where the NYU campus is located?
  • Fair enough. Actually added it to the first sentence, since I think the march through Greenwich Village was significant not just because it was where NYU was located, but also because of its importance to the queer community. Spookyaki (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Para 2: "Later, several protesters who took part in the occupation founded Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR)" - I suggest "Later, several participants founded Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR)" for concision and readability (the "participants" were part of the occupation, hence why I suggest this phrasing).
  • Para 2. note [b]: "In line with anthropologist David Valentine's definition of "transgender" as a "useful shorthand in describing non-normative genders; as a way of recognizing and objectifying a group of diverse people who have not always been seen to inhabit the category", this article uses the term broadly to encompass multiple non-normative genders and forms of gender presentation" - Is there a way to simplify this? I feel like I know what you're getting at, but why not just say non-cisgender?
  • A few reasons. For one, "transgender" is used in most of the literature. Secondly, I think using the word transgender, while anachronistic, helps establish the relationship between the early gay liberation struggles undertaken by disparate groups of gender nonconforming people and the later transgender movement. In other words, it's a productive anachronism, similar to the way suffragettes are often framed as being part of the women's liberation movement even though they mostly predated it. Spookyaki (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Background:
  • "Among these was the Stonewall Inn, which was founded on Christopher Street in the 1930s. It had established a reputation as a gay bar by 1967." - I suggest combining these. (As a minor nitpick, I'd say Stonewall opened as a gay bar in 1967, after being a more neutral establishment for three decades - at least according to Carter, David (2004). Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. St. Martin's Press. p. 77. However, this is not something that affects GA criteria in any way.)
  • "Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera are often credited with starting the riots, though their actual role in the riots is debated." - I'd rephrase to avoid repeating "the riots".
Occupation:
  • Para 1: "In September 1970, the administration at New York University canceled several upcoming dances organized by the Christopher Street Liberation Day Committee at Weinstein Hall after learning that they would be "homosexual" events. According to Rivera, several wealthy families were offended at the idea of queer dances and feared that their "impressionable children were going to be harmed" - To someone unfamiliar with the topic, might it be useful to link queer?
  • Para 1: Also, as I mentioned above, it may be helpful to mention that the hall and the NYU campus is in Greenwich Village.
  • Para 1: "In response, beginning on September 20, 1970, members of several activist organizations occupied the hall's sub-basement." - The year is unnecessary here as it was already mentioned earlier in the same paragraph.
  • Para 1: "Gay Youth (GY)" - The abbreviation is only used once here, and never again in the article. I'd remove it to streamline the text.
  • Para 2: "they had been in New York for less than a week" - Is this because the new semester had started?
  • Para 2: "However, after the occupiers canvassed in the dorms, the residents came to support them, bringing them food from the university cafeteria." - The current phrasing implies the support consisted mainly or entirely of bringing food; to avoid giving this impression, I'd say something like "even bringing them food from the university cafeteria."
  • Para 2: "Residents of the hall voted to support the protesters by a 2-1 margin" - This needs to be an endash ("2–1") per MOS:ENDASH.
  • Para 3: ""Initially, occupiers slept in various places depending on their sexuality and gender presentation, with street queens sleeping on couches in the back of the basement while lesbians slept on pool tables in the front." - For concision and readability, I suggest "Initially, occupiers slept in various places depending on their sexuality and gender presentation: street queens on couches in the back of the basement and lesbians on pool tables in the front."
  • Para 4: "However, they ultimately led a march down 8th Street towards Sheridan Square, then to the site of the Stonewall riots, then back to Weinstein Hall before finally dispersing." - I think you can get rid of the "However", as it's unnecessary here, especially with the use of "ultimately". ("However" is also a word to watch, but that's not actually a concern in this particular case, as this correctly is contrasting with the previous sentence).
Aftermath and legacy:
  • Para 1: "The flyer was published under the alias "Street Transvestites for Gay Power". It discussed the Weinstein Hall occupation, claiming that it was "lost when we left on request of the pigs". It also claimed that the "next demonstration" was going to be more difficult." - For readability, I suggest combining these into at most two sentences.
  • Para 1: "However, others, such as Bebe Scarpi, claim that Rivera was "defining herself as a street transvestite gay liberation advocate", not declaring the foundation of a new organization." - As mentioned above, "However" is also not necessary here since you then introduce the "other" viewpoint.
  • Para 2: "At NYU, they demanded the creation of a gay community center, open enrollment for gay people, and the right to be openly gay with fear of retaliation. At Bellevue, they demanded an end to psychiatric abuse and compulsory sterilization, as well as free, community-controlled health and dental care." - Did any of this happen?
  • Para 3: "An event was also held at NYU on its 50th anniversary. The event was attended by several activists who were present for the occupation and featured an anniversary ceremony, as well as a panel discussing the occupation." - Can this be combined somehow?
– Epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I tried, but it resulted in a sentence that was, I think, a bit overwrought: An event, which was attended by several activists who were present for the occupation, was also held at NYU on its 50th anniversary and featured an anniversary ceremony, as well as a panel discussing the occupation. Up to you if you want me to change it. Spookyaki (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hmm, yeah, that sounds unwieldy. I'd leave it, then. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
Formatting:
  • In the "Sources" section, you have a few sources with the notation NOTE: See previous, which is a variation of WP:IBID. I would suggest clarifying that this refers to Nothing 2013's note.
I will do some spot checks later. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Query on reference usage
  • Much of this article is sourced to either Cohen or Ng. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but were there any other sources that went into detail on the occupation? (E.g. contemporary news sources - I noticed that Cohen frequently cited Gay Flames for many of these details).
Spot checks as of this revision:
  • Ref 9 (Johnson & Wicker 1989.) - OK
  • Ref 15 (Cohen 2008, p. 111; Ng 2013, p. 20.) - OK
  • Ref 16 (Cohen 2008, p. 113; Ng 2013, p. 20.) - Checks out. Cohen quotes Gay Flames as saying these things take place.
  • Ref 17 (Cohen 2008, p. 112.) - Technically checks out - Cohen does quote one account as saying this. The source, however, also says that "Gay Flames reported 80 'students and supporters' led by NYU Gay Student Liberation." Not sure if these are mutually exclusive or not, but perhaps this may merit inclusion?
  • Ref 27 (Cohen 2008, pp. 117–118.) - All good; the page range in question has this text.
  • Ref 29 (Cohen 2008, p. 118; Ng 2013, p. 21.) - Looks fine.
  • Ref 32 (Cohen 2008, p. 125.) - Minor point, but the source cites one dance: "NYU administrators eventually relented, allowing the fledgling student group and GAA to cosponsor an open dance in the contested cavernous subbasement Arthur Bell likened to a sound stage."
@Spookyaki, just a few minor issues above. Once these are resolved the article will be ready for GA promotion. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wanted to avoid overusing sources too close to the occupation per WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. I believe I did check Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive for contemporary coverage and didn't find anything. This issue of Gay Flames seems to be the one covering the occupation (and it does say that the GSL led 80 occupiers into the hall to start the occupation, which I will add). However, I'm not sure it adds a ton that isn't already in the secondary sources. I could try to look more thoroughly into gay press archives of the time if you think it's worth it and compliant with policy to do so. Might take me a bit, though (and probably would be in excess of the requirements for GA). As to the final point, changing to NYU responded by allowing at least one gay dance to take place at Weinstein Hall. Spookyaki (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Spookyaki, thanks for the clarification. I was asking about the sources merely out of curiosity. For GA, this level of sourcing is fine, but if you ever decide to take this to FA, you'd probably need a wider variety of sourcing. That said, I can't find any other issues with the article regarding the GA criteria, so I will promote this. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
edit
  • I suggest adding a {{Coord}} coordinate location for Weinstein Hall.
  • There are no images on the article. Therefore, there are no image licensing issues. In the future, if a picture of Weinstein Hall is uploaded to Commons, I suggest adding the image here for illustrative purposes.
  • No copyvio or close paraphrasing detected.
– Epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weinstein_Hall_occupation&oldid=1318217342"