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.
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
Krisgabwoosh, the issue I'm having with this, while I try and work it out, is that the suggested use is with a Notes section with a reflist template, and references placed manually in the reference section. That doesn't work with the reference style I've been using, as it will move all the references to the notes section, which is undesirable. I have the page ranges already for both of those books, one being fourteen pages, and the other seven. It might be easier to just use named references for each specific page information is found on? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Combining both regular references and harvard citations into the same reflist is fine and doesn't preclude the article from being granted GA status. (Take the article "Germán Busch" for example.) It's preferable for direct claims to cite a specific pages, especially when the text's page range is quite large. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
He moved there with McGough, per the sourcing I found. "went to Plainsfield, N.J., with Commodore W. M. McGough, by whom he was educated." I also don't know if he was a US Navy Commodore, or that was a title as a merchant marine, or everyone just called him "Commodore" because he wore a jaunty hat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Good point, maybe just add the Commodore title to what's already in the text. At the very least, it gives a slight hint at who he was beyond just some guy Lawson moved with. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Paragraphs two and one can be combined into a single paragraph. The beginning of paragraph two should use "Lawson" rather than "he" and the latter has been used multiple times in the previous sentence. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
There's not a ton of detail in the source, Lawson kept current with social issues by attending, from 1901 to 1905, a series of special lectures as a member of the American Academy of Political and Social Science at the University of Pennsylvania I've added back social issues to the prose, although I'm slightly concerned about close paraphrasing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
In the second sentence of the final paragraph, "the" in "the founding", "of" in "of the", and "as" in "as president" can all be removed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Only "inchoate and disparate, pointing to the still substantially unsettled status of strategic choices for a racial justice campaign for the new century" is her quote. The other quotes are from Lawson's book describing the conference. The two quotes I chose to provide the counterpoint to Carle's description come from both Hill and Carle.
Hill - With regard to solving the race problem per se, the Conference unequivocally found that: "As solutions to the race problem we regard colonization, expatriation and segregation as unworthy of further consideration"
Carle - The participants largely agreed on some basic starting points, including that "As solutions to the race problem we regard colonization, expatriation and segregation as unworthy of further consideration" and "[we] have abiding faith in the principles of human rights established in the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution"
I wrote it this way to provide the context that although there were widely differing views and ideas, and the conference didn't accomplish much in the way of setting a grand strategy, there was broad agreement on some basics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I see. It's still quite confusing, as it appears the second quote is an extension of the first. It needs to be better differentiated or perhaps the key information in the second sentence could be paraphrased without directly quoting. It's also not quite clear what "for the new century" exactly means. I assume Carle is referring to the 20th century. Perhaps replacing it with [in the 20th century] would make it clearer, though this is optional. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The section is currently divided, broadly, into four paragraphs organized by topic. The first is his role in politics and law, the second is his sociological work, the third is his work highlighting progress since emancipation, and the celebration of emancipation, and the last is some of the other causes he supported which had significantly less coverage in RS, as well as a quick rundown of his works which were noteworthy enough to be included in RS.
When writing this I was up in the air about going chronologically, or by topic, and settled on breaking it up by topic, with each paragraph proceeding chronologically. Does that better explain why that paragraph starts at 1895? I thought it would break the flow of prose if I cut in halfway through the prose on the Afro-American council to mention that he was the president of the local board of commissioners for a fair.
In that case, perhaps adding section headers would help clarify things. Alternatively, as there is only one paragraph in each section, better transitions could be added to clarify that it's moving to a different topic and what that topic is. At the moment, it just appears jumbled. I assume the first paragraph is about his political career and the second is activism, but the third and fourth paragraphs just feel miscellaneous. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
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.
Passed. Congratulations! Your article meets all the criteria to be included as a Good Article. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Pass
Done All issues addressed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)