Talk:Harlem riot of 1943/GA1

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.
  - I'd suggest the vast uncertain range is best left until the main article, not the lead, perhaps add "considerable monetary damage" or something to the lead instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moved around the order a bit and changed to "monetary damage". Seattle (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"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]