Jump to content

Talk:Harlem riot of 1943/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dab pages beside the required one at the top, a couple of redirects but no action required specifically (U.S. Army, Red Cross and "segregation of blacks in the armed forces" could be fixed if other fixes nearby are happening).
    • Changed links, Red Cross actually linked to the wrong target article.
  • References, where online, check out, those with subscription needed are correctly marked.
    • OK.
  • Image has adequate fair use rationale and is used exclusively in the article for which the rationale has been provided.
    • OK.
  • Never keen on things "occuring", it seems so passive to me, would it not be better to say "took place"?
    • Changed.
  • "release a woman " by now it's "the" woman.
    • Sure.
  • "led to between $250,000–$5,000,000 in damages" possibly too detailed for the lead especially considering the 20-fold range. Perhaps a rephrase to suggest considerable costly damage was done.
    • I'd rather leave it in, it gives readers a range of the damages along with the specific mentions of the deaths and arrests.
  • "in his c. 1943–1944 work," again, I think this is a little unncessary detailed for the lead.
    • OK.
  • First sentence of the "Cause" section has seven commas. It reads rather stilted to me.
    • Moved things around a bit, how's that?
  • "housing prostitutes" just to clarify, do you mean they lived there, offered their services there or something else?
    • Reworded.
  • "the new accommodations did " maybe it's USEng, but I don't see why accomodation needs to be plural here.
    • Agreed, changed.
  • "to loudly protest" I'm no expert but that looks like a split infinitive to me. Although, reading our own article, it seems that, these days, the split infinitive is just dandy...
    • Changed.
  • "Polite to leave, Polite became ..." replace the second Polite with "she" to avoid repetition; there's no uncertainty here.
    • Yes, changed.
  • Lead says "gathered around Bandy and the officer as they attempted to enter a hospital" but the Cause section seems to state that the crowds gathered outside the hospital as Bandy was being treated for his superficial wound.
    • Tried to clarify.
  • "The crowd combined..." where?
    • Changed to "crowds", can't be sure, Capeci 1977 doesn't specify other than "combined" and Lawrence 1947 just mentions the rumors. Probably a loose combination of the crowds.
  • "the crowd became violent after an individual threw a bottle off of a roof, into the crowd " reads awkwardly with the two mentions of the crowd.
    • Removed the comma, how's that?
  • "disseminated " do you mean "dispersed"?
    • OK.
  • Throughout, you capitalise PM, our MOS:TIME seems to imply it should be just pm.
    • Changed.
  • "Go home– now!" in the message, a space before the en-dash would be nice.
    • Sure.
  • " as his father's funeral and nineteenth birthday" his father was 19? Or " as his father's funeral and his nineteenth birthday"?
    • The latter.

That's it for my first pass. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, replied. Seattle (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good here, not just a well-written article but an interesting one too. Thanks for allowing me to be involved. Promoting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]