Talk:Women's March on Portland/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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.

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

Reviewer: Ashorocetus (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a review. I skimmed through the talk page discussion; hopefully this won't be too complicated. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashorocetus, Thanks for taking this on. Yes, I disagreed with some of the feedback left on the article's talk page. But, I'm hoping you'll find the content is fair, neutral, and accurate based on sourcing. Not to suggest my previous work has anything to do with this article, but I have experience promoting similar protest articles to Good/Featured status, including Burnside Burn, Hands Across Hawthorne, Impeachment March, March for Our Lives Portland, March for Science Portland, and Not My Presidents Day. Happy to address any questions or concerns you may have. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, here's my feedback: The article is well-written, so no issue on criterion 1. Stability is also not a concern. It is very well illustrated (Nice work on the photography, by the way!). Mostly, there are only minor concerns:

Verifiability[edit]

Margaret Jacobsen's identification as a polyamorist is not in the given citation (and to be honest I'm not convinced it's relevant, though it is certainly relevant to mention "nonbinary" here). Other than that, everything is good and cited.

For the record, the claim is verified here (inline citation 8). Do you still wish to have removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine to include. Just not 100% necessary. The problem is the placement for citation 26 makes it look like that would be the one to look in for that information. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its Coverage[edit]

There are a few minor issues here. One small question is unaddressed: you mention that Families for Peaceful Protests planned to participate - Did they actually participate or not? I also am still somewhat confused after reading the "Motivation" section. What was the goal of the march? It isn't clear. Though if I recall (I was living in Oregon in 2017) it wasn't all that clear to me what the point was at the time either, so perhaps I'm just dense.

I've removed the claim re: Families for Peaceful Protests. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation section says the purpose was to "unify and empower everyone who stands for women's rights, human rights, immigrant rights, civil liberties, and social justice for all". I also think the parent article (2017 Women's March) makes this evident if readers require additional context. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I'm just dense. That all seems quite vague to me, but if that's what the protest was for then that's what it's for. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Given the political nature of the march, before my review I was most concerned that neutrality might be an issue, but it actually is almost entirely OK. A couple minor concerns, however: Firstly, you never mention a right-wing perspective. Is it not relevant? I don't know, I admit the possibility that no prominent right-wingers weighed in specifically on the Portland protest, in which case there is no need to mention it. Second issue is the first sentence of the Motivation section: "Though it was not officially billed as an "anti-Trump" event, many participants marched to support women's rights and to reinforce protests against Donald Trump." - This strongly implies that Donald Trump opposes women's rights, which you might believe but is certainly not an NPOV statement.

I definitely would have included conservative perspectives if I came across in sourcing. I scoured sourcing hard, so I really don't feel I'm overlooking viewpoints here. Can you share how you think the Trump-related sentence is not neutral? I definitely take issue with his record on women's rights, but I still feel my wording here is neutral. This source says, "The marches were not "anti-Trump," according to organizers, but attendees were largely motivated by a resistance to the new president." Can you think of specific text changes you'd like to see? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering about the conservative perspective. That was my suspicion but I wanted to confirm. As for that sentence, I think it should be pretty clear how it implies that Trump is against women's rights (Saying it was supporting women's rights despite being not explicitly anti-Trump conflates anti-Trump with pro-women's rights). I understand that you believe that is true, but it is definitely not a neutral statement. I did try to think of a more neutral statement, but nothing elegant came to mind. What if you reversed it, so something like "Many participants marched to support women's rights and to reinforce protests against Donald Trump, even though it was not officially billed as an 'anti-Trump' event." - This way the "not officially anti-Trump" is more clearly tied solely to the "protests against Donal Trump" and you're not conflating "anti-Trump" with "women's rights". Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure! I'm not entirely sure I follow your reasoning, but I have no problem with your preferred wording. Changing now... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. It's always better safe than sorry on neutrality issues. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

The article looks largely fine, other than the issues noted above. I suppose I should also mention I found no copyvio concerns. Am putting on hold for 7 days for the necessary improvements.

Thanks for taking time to review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like we're good to go. I made some minor changes per MOS:LQ. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashorocetus, Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.