Wikipedia:Peer review/White Night riots/archive1

White Night riots

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have brought it up from a Start-class (with multiple maintenance templates) to GA, and I have improved the article more. My goal is to take it to FAC, but before I do that I would like input to ensure that it meets the FA criteria. If there is anything that can reasonably be done to improve it, then I will do so before taking it to FAC.

Thanks, Firestorm ^Talk 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3

I would like to encourage you to take this to FAC, and I intend to be encouraging in these comments, so please take it that way.
I hope you noted what I added yesterday. I can add more because I have the sources to do it. Now, however, the background section is longer than the actual riots section. This creates several problems as it solves some. It solves the issues with the prose borrowed from the Stonewall riots article from sources you may not be familiar with, but then it also replaces those problems.
I cannot stress enough that if you bring this article to FAC you need to be intimately familiar with all the sources, at least cited in the article, and you should be familiar with ones not used. You will be challenged on why you decided to use what you did, and why you did not use something different. If you don't believe me, I invite you to read the archives of the Harvey Milk talk pages (start at #7) and the thorough dressing down and insult I received on the Stonewall riots talk page as it appeared on the main page last week. You'll be challenged by people who know and people who don't know. So, it is imperative that you must know what you're talking about.
It also solves the problem that the article was not comprehensive when it passed GA because much of the background involving the gay history of San Francisco was not included. I don't think it was ready for GA, but there are inherent faults in the GA system that have to be tolerated and worked around.
So you either need to cut some of the background or expand the section on the riots. In order to cut some of the background, you need to decide what issues are the greatest that bear on why the riots occurred and who was involved, and to do that, you need to know how the sources treat the issues mentioned in the article. I was surprised that Harvey Milk seemed to be a minor issue in the article. I added a tiny bit, but more could probably be added. Milk was a symbol as much as he was a man.
If you expand the riots section, you'll probably have to go to newspaper sources for 1979. There are some sources that address what happened the night of the riots, but they are not authoritative.
The article needs multiple copy edits and attention to citation consistency. This is the last thing you should do before taking it to FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the citations a overhaul. However, some of them have no page numbers and no dates, and that should be found when possible.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updates by Firestorm I've worked on what I can from Moni3's suggestions. I've re-familiarized myself with all the sourced I used, and I would like to thank Moni3 tremendously for the work done on the Background section. I think i've solved the size problem now, as well. I trimmed a few of the less important Background details, expanded the Legacy section with more newspaper articles, and moved the Verdict and Aftermath sections under the Riots heading, since the verdict was the immediate spark and the Aftermath is still part of it. Now, with the 3 main sections, I have according to my browser 3.5 pages of Background, 4 pages of Riots, and 3 pages of Legacy. This seems like a better ratio to me. Now, I think it passes all of Criteria 1. 2a and 2b should be fine, though I need to work on consistency with sources. Page numbers and dates I need to grab, then it'll meet 2c as well. I need to include alt text to satisfy criterion 3 (images), and I think 4 (length) is alright now. My biggest work now is probably going to be copyediting and formatting for consistency and MOS compliance. Any other major non-cosmetic work I need to do? Firestorm ^Talk 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... I didn't forget (totally), I will try and have something substantial by next week. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]