Talk:Black Lives Matter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an important and topical article - if there are no objections, I shall provide a review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

First things first, a lot of good work has gone on here, so whether it passes the GAN as a GA or not the editors responsible still warrant commendation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Referencing

• The article is fully referenced; I can see no "citation needed" tags or sections of clearly unreferenced text. The sources used are overwhelmingly from established mainstream press agencies, and thus are considered WP:Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are a few unreferenced bits here and there that I have spotted. The final sentence of "2015", and the first paragraph of "2016", for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Final sentence of 2015 was fixed, and the first paragraph of 2016 is a topical paragraph, all of the those names are included in the section. I did the same thing in 2015 and 2014.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• There appears to be no use of academic sources, published in peer-reviewed journals. This is unfortunate, as these are generally recognised as the best form of Reliable Source according to Wikipedia's policy on the subject. I'm not personally familiar with the academic literature on BLM, but I can imagine that it expands greatly upon the motivations, context, and ideology of the movement in a way that mainstream press sources simply don't. (I can imagine, for instance, that some academics would place BLM in the context of Obama's presidency, the Tea Party movement etc, which just aren't mentioned here). On this count I am a little concerned as to whether the article meets criteria 3a) that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Citation 106 is a dead link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Citation 128 lacks information on the author/publisher of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed this --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Citation 39 needs to be corrected; at present I'm not sure what it is actually referring to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Some citations give the retrieval date; others don't. I would recommending standardising this so that they all have this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• None of the citations are archived. This is not an essential for passing at GAN but it would be strongly recommended so that the citations do not succumb to link rot. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• Citations are not required in the lede as it should replicate properly referenced text in the wider article, but you certainly don't have to remove them just for GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• The third paragraph consists largely of a list of fourteen names. I'm not really sure that this is either necessary or complies fully with the MOS guidelines for how to produce a lede (long lists of this nature tend to be avoided). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • removed the list of names --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system" - maybe "perceived racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system"? Of course I personally think that the evidence for such inequality is flagrantly obvious, but we might want to stay on the 'safe side' of criteria 4: that the article remains "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • added perceived--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that the lede aptly summarises the article contents as is mentioned per MOS. For instance, it mentions that there are criticisms of BLM, but does not state what those criticisms are. It mentions that "The U.S. population's perception of Black Lives Matter varies considerably by race" but that does not tell us much on its own. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Any response on this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I added criticism paragraph to lede. any further points are welcome --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• Forenames are repeated, such as that of Al Sharpton. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Various duplinks, such as DeRay McKesson. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Timeline of notable U.S. events and demonstrations" drags on a bit and is rather repetitive. It's a difficult situation; obviously we want to provide a good overview of the different protests, but this just feels like a long list of incidents with very little unifying thrust. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Throughout the article, there are far too many paragraphs that consist of only a sentence or two. Even some sections and sub-sections contain only a sentence or two. This is not ideal as per the Manual of Style. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Images

• "2014" has a few too many images, I think. It looks clustered and untidy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My general concern about this article is that at present it feels a bit scrappy. A fact here, a fact there. To a great extent, this is because of the source material used. News articles from the web tend to give a snapshot of a 'current event' like a demonstration without offering wider critical analysis of it. This is where academic studies of the movement would be beneficial. Ideally of course we would have a wider published history of the movement that we could draw upon, but as this is an ongoing event we probably won't have any of those for several years at least. My gut instinct would be to not pass this article at this time. However, right now I'm going to put this article out for a second opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If possible, could it be made clear which of these points has been responded to by the nominator? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Second Opinion My caveat here is that I only read through the article for prose since that seemed to be Midnightblueowl's main concern. I agree that the prose can use some work, a while to go before FA quality, but it is surely "clear and concise" per 1a so I think it is within the criteria. Secondly, while I also agree that the lack of academic sources is unfortunate (perhaps I'll compile some for people to use, remind me if anyone is interested) I'm actually very pleased with the breadth of coverage the authors have achieved. Looking towards FA, I think those sources will be necessary, but for GA I think it addresses all the facets of the topic sufficiently. As long as everything else is to your liking, Midnightblueowl, I would recommend promotion. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Further concerns

• Citation 98 is a dead link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Replaced with a source that has a working URL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• There remains a lot of inconsistency in the formatting of sources. Some for example don't provide dates, some don't provide retrieval dates, some italicise the name of the publisher and others do not. This could really do with being standardised, although that probably isn't a requirement for GA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you know if there is a script or an automated tool that can help standardize citations? I've looked, but most of the citation tools appear to be aimed toward helping editors add new citations, not formatting the existing citations in an article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I'm not aware of any. It's the sort of job that I've always done manually. Time consuming and dull, but at least the references look nicer at the end of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

At this juncture I feel that the most appropriate move is to pass this article as a GA. I'm still fairly concerned about its over-reliance on press sources at the expense of academic publications, but I appreciate that BLM is a current event and thus the historical studies and such like probably have not been produced yet. I am also fairly happy that it meets the GA criteria, and clearly Wugapodes agreed on that point when I requested a second opinion. Congratulations on all the good work that you have put into this article, JumpLike23. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)