Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hands Across Hawthorne/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2016 [1].

Hands Across Hawthorne edit

Nominator(s): --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a protest in Portland, Oregon, in reaction to an assault against a gay couple. Shortly after its June 2011 creation, the article was reviewed by User:Finetooth (see this talk page discussion) and User:Wasted Time R (see the good article review). In addition, it received two reviews by members of the Guild of Copy Editors (User:GeneralizationsAreBad and User:Twofingered Typist) in June 2016 and a peer review from User:Pax85 earlier this month. This article is shorter than most FAs, but I've seen others that are even shorter. I figured I would be bold and see if this article can be promoted to FA status. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I hope this passes FAC; I'd like to see it on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am fine with your edits. Much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a pity that this article hasn't attracted a bit more reviewer atttention, but perhaps I can get some discussion going:

  • On three occasions in the article – twice in the lead and once in the "Rally" section – the word "prior" is used incorrectly as an adverb. Some dictionaries (not Oxford) suggest "priorly" as the adverbial form, but a standard word such as "previously" would serve better.
    • Hmm, really? I replaced "prior" with "previously" in all three instances, though it reads funny to me. @Brianboulton: What about "one week earlier" or "72 hours earlier"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you could say "earlier" in place of the first "previously", and leave the others. That would read well. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in the first sentence you should say "a gay male couple" rather than just "a gay couple"
  • You should also mention in the lead the severity of the assault. At present there is no indication in the lead whether the assault was a mere shove, or a violent, near-homicidal attack.
  • On occasion the prose tends to be non-neutral, e.g. "even though it was only publicized by a single Facebook page just 72 hours prior". This aspect of the prose needs watching.
    • I don't see how this wording is biased, but I am happy to address any specific concerns if you can note wording and alternatives. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of "even", "only" and "just" in a single phrase affects its neutrality and directs readers' responses. Omitting these words. " More than 4,000 people attended the rally, which had been publicized on a single Facebook page 72 hours previously" gives the same information without nuance. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to trim the See also section to maybe the second and third links.

An unusual article, thanks for working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to review this article. I am happy to continue responding to your comments and concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I can't promise to revisit, but I'll keep watching it and chip in further if/when I can. Hopefully. others will, tooBrianboulton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thanks for replying. I believe I've addressed your concerns. If that earns your support, I'd appreciate a follow-up. If you prefer not to support, thanks for offering feedback and helping to improve this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking another look today. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my additional comments. I've also done some minor ce:

Hate crimes in Portland
  • "Portland Police Bureau statistics demonstrated..." – "showed" rather than demonstrated?
  • What exactly do you mean by "bias crime assaults"? Are they the same as "hate crimes"?
    • @Brianboulton: I went with what the source said. The source also put quotation marks around "bias crime assaults". Here at Wikipedia, "bias crime" redirects to Hate crime, so I'd be fine with replacing "bias crime assaults" with "hate crimes" if you feel the terms are synonymous and/or the direct quote is unnecessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty clear that the two terms are effectively synonymous, and I've introduces a small tweak in the text to clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the 50 hate crimes reported in 2010 comparable to the 15 bias crime assaults reporyed for 2009? If so, that's a more than three-fold increase, and readers should be alerted.
    • Again, we should decide if "bias crime" and "hate crime" are synonymous, and whether we want to go with the specific wording used in sources, or generalize. I lend towards the former, but I am open to the latter if you prefer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May of that year..." → "In May 2010..."
  • "Not all hate crimes were prevented for the remainder of the year, however;" This has not been suggested or implied in the preceding text. I suggest you amend to: "Hate crimes continued in the city; in November 2010..." etc, and begin the following sentence "However, according to..."
Assault
Rally
  • In the first line you refer to "the rally", without defining what this was. I think you need to say at this point who decided to hold a rally, and roughly what form it was intended to take. Later you call it an "event" and mention the hand-holding part, but you need to bring some of this information forward.
  • "This campaign..." what "campaign" are you referring to here?
  • I am not very happy with a 180-word verbatim extract from Forkner's speech. Since the wording is taken from a recent newspaper article there is a possible copyright issue; this may be considered too long to be a brief extract for which fair use would be applicable. It would be better to paraphrase the main elements of Forkner's speech in your own words and augment this with a one or two of the more striking quotes from the speech
  • I've slightly reduced the quotation by introducing a small degree of paraphrase. I think it will do now. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "in response" in the final paragraph are redundant and clash with "responded" later in the line.

Looking promising now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns have been addressed, and subject to a sources review I will be happy to see this promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you so, so much for your time and assistance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • When I click on Reference 36, I get linked to a page that says “Oops! That page can’t be found.” This may just be a problem on my end, but I would suggest archiving this page.
  • References 17 and 31 are dead and need to be archived.
  • In the final sentence of the final paragraph of the “Assault” subsection, you mention the “initial plans” for the Q Patrols. The phrasing “initial plans” suggest that there was some sort of change, but this is not addressed in the page.
    • I don't know the fate of the Q Patrols, but I changed the wording to "Plans were made to have Q Patrols", which I hope is less ambiguous. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may already be obvious, but I would suggest making the meaning/reason behind the rally a little more obvious. I am assuming the act of linking hands across the bridge is an act of solidarity, but there is some vague/unclear wording, and it may be helpful to mention this somewhere in the “Rally” section once. The final sentence of the first paragraph of the “Rally” section mentions the purpose of the event as linking hands without going into how it connects to the previous assault or why this is being done. You also mention “the symbolism of the hand-holding rally” without going further into it. This may be obvious so I could be mistaken, but I just wanted to draw your attention to it.
  • In the sentence (That event was sponsored by The LGBT Center), are you referring to a specific LGBT center and if so could please specify this in the page?

@Another Believer: Great work with the article. It was a very informative read, and it makes me want to read more about different rallies. I am still pretty new to Wikipedia so take my comments with a grain of salt, but I just wanted to point out some things I noticed during my initial read-through. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for taking time to review this article, which is now better because of your suggestions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Another Believer: Support: Thank you for your prompt responses. I can definitely support this now. If possible, could you provide some comments for my FAC of Chad Harris-Crane? I understand if you do not have time, so I apologize for any inconvenience. Good luck with getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

  • I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability.
  • Also, since it's seems to have been a few years since Another Believer's last successful FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

You can request these at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: OK, thanks for the suggestion. I added a request here (I hope this is what you meant). ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check edit

a-coming up..using this revision in case ref numbers change.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • References formatted consistently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 31 a dead link for me tonight
  • FN 32 - material faithful to source
  • FN 18 - timing out for me.
  • FN 19 - material faithful to source
  • FN 20 - used 3 times - material faithful to source, apart from I can't find reference to the use of the Beatles song..and FN 29 seems to have been removed (?)
    • @Casliber: I archived reference #29, which does mention the song. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok that's cool. I guess the next question is about the use of a blog for a source. Pretty mundane material and Daily Kos itself is notable....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Casliber: Is this question for me, or one of the FAC coordinators? I assumed Daily Kos was ok to use, but I don't know if a discussion somewhere has concluded otherwise. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess more for the coordinators. My impression is I think it's ok but it is not an area I usually edit in at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can use internet archive now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I archived the links you mentioned. Please let me know if you have any other concerns, comments, or questions. Thank you for taking time to review this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Laser brain edit

Everything looks good here. It is a well-written account of the event, and it maintains a properly encyclopedic tone. My only complaint is that I'm not sure I see the value in File:Hands Across Hawthorne 2.jpg. You already have a shot of the bridge, another of the crowd, and one of a speaker. This one doesn't seem to add much to reader comprehension. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. In my opinion, this image best illustrates the crowd when actually spanning the bridge. The lead image is from a far distance, and the latter crowd image shows the rally in an adjacent field following the bridge protest. I'll remove the image if required to pass FAC, but otherwise I'd prefer to leave. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just my opinion and I'm definitely not holding back my support. Thanks for your explanation! --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hands_Across_Hawthorne/archive1&oldid=1079645725"