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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This looks like an interesting read. I'll review it over the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 01:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The prose is exemplary. Only a few minor issues.
the white supremacists considered the counterdemonstration a victory. I don't see where this is supported by the body. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
However, Blackburn backed out of the idea– "However" is unnecessary here. It could just say "He backed out".
this did not come to fruition– "did not happen" or "did not occur" would be more concise.
The sources aren't perfect, but they're reliable enough for GA. There are a lot of primary sources here (sources created at the time or by people recollecting their experiences of the time), but that's not a GA issue. The Daily Beast is questionable, but it meets the bare minimum standard and no controversial claim depends solely on this source; it would probably need to be replaced if this were FA. There are also a few opinionated or advocacy sources that require special attention and shouldn't be used for controversial claims. These are:
Other spot checks:
as well as ten othersmakes it sound like the ten others were explicitly not part of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, but the source doesn't say.
Potential omissions:
Potential out of scope content:
The planned march was to occur against the backdrop of several high-profile racial incidents across the country– Is it agreed that these specific examples are directly relevant or that they contributed to the protests? If it's just something that's given a passing mention in contemporary news reporting, then they might not be relevant.
I'll admit, I didn't know what to expect here, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see an article about racial conflict that has no apparent NPOV issues. The prose largely gives a straightforward recounting of the events, and any potentially controversial claims are well sourced.
No recent disputes in the article history or on the talk page.
All images are public domain or Creative Commons. Ideally the portraits would be from 1987 or around that time, but I imagine those are difficult to find.
Thebiguglyalien, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address some of the points you raised in your GA review. Thanks for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns about the article, please let me know. - JJonahJackalope ( talk) 19:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This looks like an interesting read. I'll review it over the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 01:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The prose is exemplary. Only a few minor issues.
the white supremacists considered the counterdemonstration a victory. I don't see where this is supported by the body. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
However, Blackburn backed out of the idea– "However" is unnecessary here. It could just say "He backed out".
this did not come to fruition– "did not happen" or "did not occur" would be more concise.
The sources aren't perfect, but they're reliable enough for GA. There are a lot of primary sources here (sources created at the time or by people recollecting their experiences of the time), but that's not a GA issue. The Daily Beast is questionable, but it meets the bare minimum standard and no controversial claim depends solely on this source; it would probably need to be replaced if this were FA. There are also a few opinionated or advocacy sources that require special attention and shouldn't be used for controversial claims. These are:
Other spot checks:
as well as ten othersmakes it sound like the ten others were explicitly not part of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, but the source doesn't say.
Potential omissions:
Potential out of scope content:
The planned march was to occur against the backdrop of several high-profile racial incidents across the country– Is it agreed that these specific examples are directly relevant or that they contributed to the protests? If it's just something that's given a passing mention in contemporary news reporting, then they might not be relevant.
I'll admit, I didn't know what to expect here, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see an article about racial conflict that has no apparent NPOV issues. The prose largely gives a straightforward recounting of the events, and any potentially controversial claims are well sourced.
No recent disputes in the article history or on the talk page.
All images are public domain or Creative Commons. Ideally the portraits would be from 1987 or around that time, but I imagine those are difficult to find.
Thebiguglyalien, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address some of the points you raised in your GA review. Thanks for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns about the article, please let me know. - JJonahJackalope ( talk) 19:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)