Talk:Brian Williamson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Certainly a subject worthy of a good article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "he argued on behalf of LGBT rights" Does this work? He could argue on behalf of the LGBT community perhaps, or for LGBT rights?
 * I agreed with your latter suggestion. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "with J-FLAG receiving death threats" Can an organisation be threatened with death?
 * This is a tricky one. I see your point, but I'm not entirely sure how else to reword this as I'm not precisely sure how the threats were received (and thus wouldn't want to write "death threats were sent to the J-FLAG office" etc). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, having seen your other comment on this issue, I've changed my mind somewhat. Accordingly, I'll adapt the prose to mention "J-FLAG members" rather than the organisation itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "studying for this position in Montego Bay" Do we know the name of the training organisation?
 * Unfortunately not; the source only specifies the city. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Since its foundation, the group was also subject to repeat death threats." Again on death threats- the sentence is an odd one. I'm not sure what "also" is doing and the tense is jarring. How about something like "From the its foundation, the group's members were subjected to repeated death threats."
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Perspective and Nationwide" Worth redlinks?
 * Personally I'd suggest against using redlinks here, for the reason that I am unsure whether Perspective and Nationwide were radio or television shows, and thus I would have to direct the redlink toward "Perspective (Jamaica)" which I'm not sure works terribly well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * " Among those who Williamson befriended" Shouldn't that be "whom"?
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit worried about how the Wikipedia article seems to suggest that two people were involved in the murder, but that only one was jailed. The current implication is that there is someone who "got away with it", which makes me worry about NPOV and BLP issues.
 * Unfortunately, I could not find much press coverage of the actual trial itself. I don't know if this is because there was little press coverage to start with or has to do with the fact that the events in question happened in the mid-2000s, when access to the internet may have been far more restricted in Jamaica. That being the case, I'm not really sure about what I should do here. As it is, I have tried to follow the sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Williamson's murder as "most prominent" example" the?
 * Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your Gayle source lacks a publisher/publication
 * Well spotted. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing lots of hits in good newspapers and academic publications, but I think that's mostly because his murder is a prominent example of homophobia in Jamaica. One worth quoting/referencing is perhaps this- anything worth adding?
 * Yes, a lot of sources mention the murder in passing when discussing anti-LGBT prejudice in Jamaican society but do not delve beyond that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Independent article doesn't really offer any new information, but I shall incorporate it into the article regardless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Back later. The article reads well as a whole. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Violence against LGBT people?
 * Good idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy that the article is in a good place; my only worry is about the mention of the second man supposedly involved in the attack. The Gleaner is apparently a broadsheet, but I've no idea how reliable it should be considered. WP:BLPCRIME says that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This seems to be relevant here. I wonder whether removing the pseudonym and being completely clear that you are rehashing what is said in The Gleaner would be helpful, here. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the wording that specifies the nickname of the second man, as well as removing any claim that the second man was involved in the attack. Do you think that the problem is dealt with sufficiently? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy with the changes you've made, and, seeing as you've since edited the article, I'm going to assume that you're happy with the changes I have made. I am promoting the article at this time. Nice work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've placed the article in Good articles/Social sciences and society. I have no objection to it being moved if appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)