Talk:Lynching of Jesse Washington/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 22:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "Washington was tried for murder in Waco, Texas, in a courtroom teeming with furious Wacoans." -> Not sure I like the second clause here. Perhaps "in a courtroom filled with furious locals".
   ***Alright, I put your phrase in.
   I'd simplify some of the phrases in the lead as there's a faint hint of journalistic tone in things like "charred, mutilated body" (lose one adjective), "racism and brutality" (drop "and brutality") or "vivid demonstration of government-condoned sadistic behavior" (try "demonstration of government-sanctioned violence").
   ***I used your suggestions on the first and the last, changed "racism and brutality" to "racial violence"
   "Washington hanging from the tree after being severely burnt" -> "a tree", there's nothing specific or singular about the tree in question.
   ***Good catch, didn't notice that.
   The first time in the article body and in the lead (so once each) that you mention NAACP, give its full name and the acronym in brackets afterwards. It's standard practice to do that anyway but especially given that NAACP is pretty much unknown over this side of the pond.
   ***Hmm, it would be, wouldn't it. Oddly enough, a lot of people here try to avoid saying their whole name since "colored" is now an offensive term. Similar situation with the United Negro College Fund.
   "Taciturn" has connotations of dourness and stoicism; is this the intention or would the more emotion-neutral "tacit", which simply connotes silence, be better here?
   ***Now that I think about it, I assumed they were dour, but the source just says "silent", I think, so I changed it to quiet.
   "That's what I done [sic]" -> stick {{sic}} in here as it provides a link for readers unfamiliar with the notation
   ***lol, I had that in before and then took it out.
   "There were no negative repercussions for Mayor John Dollins and Police Chief John McNamara: although they made no attempt to stop the mob, they remained well respected in Waco;[46] as was common with such attacks, no one was prosecuted for the lynching.[29]" ->Split this into two sentences, with a full stop before ref 46 and beginning again with "As was common". No need to reword it.
   ***You know, people have noted that I tend to use too many short sentences, so I might be starting to overcompensate.
   "(The NAACP did not publicly identify the leaders of the mob.)" -> I don't think this need to be in brackets; perhaps make it a continuation of the previous sentence, linked with "although".
   ***Ok, done.
   "White leaders of Waco took a non-violent approach to demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement, possibly owing to a desire to stigmatizing the city again." -> I assume this should be "a desire to avoid stigmatizing"?
   ***Yes, fixed.
   "Hesitation Blues" should be in quote marks
   ***Good catch, added.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS seems fine to me.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   You can stick inline citations in a note, rather than including them as bracketed asides. See Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) for an example. Apart from that, I don't see any issues with sources or citations.

   I prefer to use the {{harv}} in the end notes, since it's easier on the reader because they end up with the same amount of clicks to get to the bibliography as the footnotes doesn't interrupt the flow of the text like {{harv}} would in the body. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems grand to me.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Though the events seem to be neutral enough, I'm thinking I might ask for a second opinion on it. I'm just concerned that at times the language might be a bit emotive, though I'm probably vastly overestimating any actual issue (I gave 2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka a similar degree of caution and it was perfectly fine).

   I hadn't thought of that, but I'll take another swing through with an eye for emotive language. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History seems fine, and I can't see this being too controversial in this day and age.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are fine. I think the lead image is stark enough to be powerful but difficult enough to make out due to the resolution and quality that it's not as shocking as it could be; so that suits well.

   Ok, I had considered putting the picture of the crowd gathered around the tree at the top, but used this one due to its size. The postcard was the lead image for a while, pretty shocking way to start the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few issues to sort out and this one should be fine. I'll give it another read through in a day or two just to reassure myself over criterion four, unless someone else wants to cast an eye over that for me in the interim. Interesting article! GRAPPLE X 22:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Had another read through it, and I'm content. Going to pass this one. Well done! GRAPPLE X 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)