Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nashville sit-ins/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:38, 25 January 2010.

Nashville sit-ins

 * Nominator(s): Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I would put this article through a peer review before bringing it here, but I'm hoping to get it featured for the 50th anniversary of the sit-ins which is on February 13th. It has already been approved as a Good Article and represents over a year of research. Please help me refine it to featured status if possible. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is good. I approve of the research.  The PRIMARY is covered by using a RS specifically on the primaries in use, but:
 * "downtown" is an Americanism. Use an international piece of English at least once (maybe the second use in the lede?  "Inner city?" "Inner urban?" "Commercial district?")
 * Your short cites are Last, ShortTitle, ##. Wynn, Tennessee Historical Quarterly is thus wrong.  It should be Wynn, "The Dawning of a New Day" as the title there is the article title.
 * page numbers with no title versus pp. 1. Firstly pp. 1 means pages 1.  I think you mean p. 1.  Secondly, either no preface to the page numbers, or prefaces to all.
 * Quoted in Sumner, The Local Press and the Nashville Student Movement, 1960, 130–131. you actually mean, Quoted in Sumner, The Local Press and the Nashville Student Movement, 1960, 130–131. Theses don't take italics (see the cite thesis template if you're using the cite book style, if by hand, easily fixed)
 * Inconsistency in date position in newspaper articles, if you're using templates author=[Staff] will fix it. If by hand, fix manually.
 * Harris, Mac (March 2, 1960). "75 Students Back in Jail". The Tennessean.
 * "No Place in Nashville for Inciters of Strife". Nashville Banner. March 1, 1960.
 * I heartily approve of the sources used and source diversity. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced the 2nd occurrence of downtown with "central business district" (what a mouthful). All the other suggestions you mentioned have been implemented. Thanks for the feedback. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Question - Would it be possible to make the first picture a bit bigger, and still keep fair use? The Ministry (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I can find a larger version of the image, I'll try to use it. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about using one of the images in the Nashville Public Library website instead? I am thinking of Jimmy Ellis's photo of 4 students at the Walgreen's lunch counter: it's a better image anyway, even if it weren't at higher resolution. Also, has someone contacted the library for permission to republish via the Creative Commons license? That would be better than fair use. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've tried. It's completely hopeless :( The Nashville Public Library is extremely protective of their images (and they actually own most of the copyrights). I've gone ahead and requested a higher resolution version (400px) of the lead image. I had to fill out 2 pages of paperwork, sign away my first-born child, and pay $40. They said they will mail me a CD with the image (complete with a copyright notice plastered across the bottom). Ug. Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, it's not worth $40! Can you take it back? We can't go above 100,000 pixels or so anyway, for fair use. The published Ellis JPEG is 300,000 pixels, so it'd have to be downresed anyway. That's part of why the Ellis photo is better: it'll look better at 100,000 pixels than File:Nashville sit-in.jpg will, because it has just four subjects; File:Nashville sit-in.jpg will require so much detail to be effective, that I worry it'll raise concerns that we're abusing fair-use. Eubulides (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. The other advantage of the Ellis photo is that the copyright isn't owned by the Nashville Library (they own all the Nashville Banner photographs, but not The Tennessean ones), so we won't have to deal with their "vigorous" copyright enforcement. I'll switch out the photos as suggested. And yes, I was able to cancel the $40 order :) Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - “although neither he nor his wife were injured” I am not a native speaker, but wouldn't “however” (or “but”) work better than “although” here? (I consulted the New Oxford American Dictionary and it seems as if although is use more in this sense: “in spite of the fact that.”) But as I said, I'm not a native speaker so I might be completely wrong here. The Ministry (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to "however". Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comments and support - A very well written and researched article. Maybe you should at a legacy section (or something) similar at the end. Note #2 dosen't give sources. Who says they started in '58, and who says '59? Same thing for Note #3, after “most later sources” write something like “see, for example Jon Doe 1999 and Joe Bloggs 1966” The Ministry (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can put together enough information to create a legacy section. I'll also dig up the sources for Notes 2 and 3. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find enough material for a legacy section, but I did add a new section for the fiftieth anniversary, as several events are planned to mark the occasion. Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Kaldari (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast! Thanks. But I'm afraid that the alt text needs work. The alt text for File:Nashville sit-in.jpg contains details ("sit-in", "Woolworths") not obvious by a non-expert (see WP:ALT). The alt text for the map doesn't convey the gist of the map, which should be the general locations of the sitins (see WP:ALT). Also, please omit the phrase "photograph of", used twice (see WP:ALT). Eubulides (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See if that's better. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks good, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I picked one source at sort-of-random, Sumner's 1989 PhD thesis. It appears that it should be replaced by other citations to the work that he published on the same subject, as this work is later and (as it is peer-reviewed) is presumably higher quality. I found the following sources: Eubulides (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * David E. Sumner. The media's role in a nonviolent movement: the Nashville Student Movement [PDF]. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication; 1993 Aug 11–14; Kansas City, MO.
 * David E. Sumner. The media's role in a nonviolent movement: the Nashville Student Movement [PDF]. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication; 1993 Aug 11–14; Kansas City, MO.
 * Sumner's PhD thesis is 254 pages long. The articles above are 11 and 17 pages respectively and do not contain the same depth of information. Kaldari (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but that's what academic peer review is for, right? It helps authors emphasize or clarify important info, and to omit info that is questionable or less important. It's not clear that an encyclopedia article should be based on material that either Sumner or his reviewers thought was not solid enough, or not important enough, to appear in his peer-reviewed publications on the topic. It'd be helpful to use Sumner's later and more-reliable sources when they support the claims (which I hope and expect they will); if they don't support the claims, that'll be a signal that perhaps the claims need to be reworded or rethought, or a better source found. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The thesis is currently cited 6 times in the article. The first 5 times are all secondary citations for basic facts reported by newspaper articles. The original newspaper articles are also cited, but these articles are only available on microfilm (as far as I know), as the Nashville Banner is long defunct and The Tennessean doesn't have archives going back that far. I've personally printed out all of these articles from microfilm, but I wouldn't expect someone wanting to verify the facts of the article to do the same. The thesis citations in these cases are purely to assist in fact checking, as they add nothing otherwise. In all 5 of these cases, my only option would be to remove the thesis citations, as no other citations (besides the original newspaper articles) are available.
 * In the 6th case, the thesis is cited for the sentence regarding the opposing stances of the two newspapers. In this case, any of the Sumner sources could be used. In fact, virtually any of my sources could be used for that statement as it is widely reported throughout the literature. I chose to use the thesis, however, since it is specifically concerned with that topic, and documents it with 200+ pages of evidence. Whether or not it is peer-reviewed seems a bit nit-picky, as it isn't making any unique or controversial claims in this case.
 * As surprising as this may be, Sumner's thesis is actually the most comprehensive source on the Nashville sit-ins that exists anywhere in any form. Personally, I would hate to lose it from the references, as it would be the first thing I would recommend to anyone doing further research on the subject. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed doctoral theses are internally and/or externally examined by academics. So they've been through a form of peer review.  I wouldn't say its as desirable as the peer review associated with the journal publication process.  Additionally, doctoral theses are reliable sources.  The uses here look fine to me, but if they're replaceable or can have a second source to a peer reviewed journal publication, then all the better. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went back and reviewed the thesis regarding the sixth citation. It is definitely a good citation for that paragraph as it breaks down the differences between the two newspaper articles mentioned in the paragraph. Neither of the other Sumner sources even mention the articles. The assertion that the two newspapers had opposing stances on segregation is actually cited to Halberstam, not Sumner. So all 6 Sumner citations are simply to verify factual statements given in local newspaper coverage. Neither of the other Sumner sources offered would be able to do this. Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the new Sumner sources, it appears that the 1993 paper isn't a published journal article. It's merely a paper that was presented at a conference. Thus it is unlikely that it was peer-reviewed and in fact is probably of less "quality" than the PhD thesis. I support adding the other Sumner source, however. Although I don't think it should be used to replace the thesis (as explained above). Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've successfully integrated the new Sumner source into the article without interrupting the existing flow too much. Let me know if it looks OK. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Image concern review: Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Jimmy Ellis Nashville sit-ins.jpg: WP:NFCC requires ten criteria to be fulfilled for copyrighted fair use on Wikipedia. Please explain (elaborate the FUR on the image page) why or how this image would satisfy criteria 1&mdash;no free equivalent (text or image)&mdash;and 8&mdash;contextual significance.
 * I the fair-use rationale on the image page. Eubulides (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry I wasn't able to get to this earlier. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. By the way, is this image public domain? If it was published in 1960, and its copyright wasn't renewed, it's public domain. See Public domain  for how to find out if the copyright was renewed. You know more about the image than I do; perhaps you know where it was first published? Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. Most photos of the sit-ins were never published or only published recently. Your question has inspired me to try to get a hold of a photo published by the Tennessean in 1960, though. Stay tuned. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down a decent-quality version of a new photo that seems to be public domain (as far as I can tell). If anyone else would like to help verify it's status, it would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks nice. The Wikimedia software does a terrible job at reducing that, due to the moire effect; mind if I do a Gaussian blur on it to reduce those artifacts? Your analysis of its public-domainedness seems correct. Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I descreened and downsampled the image to remove the half-toning. I also increased the brightness and contrast slightly. Let me know if it looks better to you. Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I hope you can succeed in making your deadline, but I think the article does need some further work.
 * I understand that you face difficulties with the photographs, but it is still disappointing that photos like the one at aren't in the article, and the "whites only" picture comes all the way from Ohio.
 * It's my understanding that using several fair use images showing similar things is generally frowned upon. I think I can safely justify using one, but I'm not sure the guidelines would support me using several. Regarding the sign photo, I wasn't able to find any similar photographs taken in Nashville, free license or otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The protestors' code is cited to an offline reference, but online references exist . I think that the code is noteworthy enough to quote in full.
 * I'll see about adding the entire code. Kaldari (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. Kaldari (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why one section heading hyphenates "Pre-cursors", but some proofreading may be in order.
 * Fixed. BTW, I've asked some other editors to help proofread the article, so hopefully any lingering issues will be found. I've probably read the article too many times myself to be able to notice anything wrong at this point :) Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article ends with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I doubt that was really the end of the story.
 * For sit-ins in Nashville (and pretty much all anti-segregation direct action campaigns in the US), that's the end of the story. For individual activists, there is of course more story, but that's outside the scope of this article. I wrote or contributed to many of the articles on the activists if you're interested in learning more about their later lives. Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says that a bomb was used, but does not say that it was dynamite.
 * None of the sources I have (including newspaper articles) specify what type of bomb was used. Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See, ref. 8 from   &c.  I'd like to see the article mine out all the online sources, and some others. Wnt (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is clearly far more interesting to feature than most of the FACs, but it will need further development. Wnt (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the fiftieth anniversary the only one that was commemorated?
 * I'm not sure. I'll try to find out. Kaldari (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that File:Paul Laprad Nashville sit-ins 1960.jpg is being used, we can't justify fair use on similar photos. (File:Jimmy Ellis Nashville sit-ins.jpg is sufficiently different and important that it qualifies, but I doubt whether others would.) Perhaps we can find more photos published in The Tennessean or other newspapers, which are now public domain and which we can use? That's not essential, but it would be better than what we have how.
 * "For individual activists, there is of course more story, but that's outside the scope of this article." Yes, but still, it'd be good to have a brief summary of the collective further careers of the activists, to better tie the article into the broader context. The careers themselves may be out of scope, but the influence of the Nashville sit-ins on them, and how the careers affected (or did not affect) the later course of the civil rights movement, are highly relevant. Let's put it this way: the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and right now the lead (rightly) says "Many of the organizers of the Nashville sit-ins went on to become important leaders in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement"—but almost nothing is said about this topic in the article's body; a bit of a discussion in the body would be welcome and relevant.
 * I also like the idea of adding the code; it's pretty short.
 * Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This article is pretty close to FA quality now. Thanks for working on it! I made to fix some minor problems and one major one: fair-use of a historical image requires commentary on that image. Aside from the above issues, I have the following notes: Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the direct relevance of the items noted in the See also section, and suggest that this section be removed.
 * The first External link (to http://www.tnstate.edu/library/digital/nash.htm) doesn't contain anything important that's not already in the article. I suggest removing it. To replace it, I suggest Tennesee4me (http://www.tn4me.org/minor_cat.cfm/minor_id/31/major_id/11/era_id/8): it's much better, particularly because of its images.
 * I'd like to ask that the citation quality be improved a bit; I've followed up at Talk:Nashville sit-ins .

Question I've been doing some checking on comprehensiveness by researching the Nashville sit-ins on JSTOR and I'm wondering if you used that database at all because I'm finding quite a few articles that mention the sit-ins. The general outline of the event presented in the Wikipedia article is what is presented in these articles, but there are some interesting facts and quotations that you might want to consider using. I'm just wondering if you had already read these articles or not. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to JSTOR, so pretty much all of the sources I've used have been from my local library - several books and original newspaper articles on microfilm. There are, of course, lots of facts left out of this narrative for the sake of brevity. The ones I'm aware of include:
 * The story behind why there was no police protection during the 4th sit-in
 * James Stallman's vendetta against James Lawson. (Stallman was the publisher of the Nashville Banner.)
 * Looby's confrontations with Judge John I. Harris
 * Disagreements between the NCLC and the Nashville Student Movement on leadership issues
 * The story of the boycotts (which is only touched on in this article)
 * The conspiracy charges and how they were eventually dropped
 * The roles of Fred Harvey and John Sloan (the two biggest store owners) in the whole story
 * The tentative early desegregation of the Greyhound bus station restaurant
 * The CBS television documentary (which I haven't been able to find much information about)
 * Lawson's reconciliation with Vanderbilt
 * These were all consciously left out of the article in order to keep it focused and readable. I don't think any facts that are central to the story (or critical to its comprehensiveness) have been left out, however. If you know of any that I should consider adding, feel free to suggest them. Kaldari (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point about JSTOR. I just now checked JSTOR and came up with the following possible citations to use:
 * I don't have easy access to this, but it seems quite relevant.
 * Good coverage of the relationship between the sit-ins (which get several pages of coverage) to educational issues, notably school integration.
 * Some choice nuggets about Looby and the sit-ins, including the usually composed Looby breaking down in tears after being given a standing ovation the day after the bombing.
 * There were a lot of other JSTOR hits but the other sources seemed to be either too dated or not directly relevant. Did you have any other sources in mind? I'm not expert at using JSTOR and could well have missed something. (What's with all these journals that don't have DOIs or decent URLs? Sigh.) I have easy access to read the two journal-article sources but alas cannot make copies due to copyright restrictions. I can try to draft text based on them, if there's interest, but would like to hear about more JSTOR-related sources first (save me some work to do 'em all at once). Eubulides (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put in a request for Many Minds, One Heart through my library. If you know of any way I can view the other sources, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 24 JSTOR hits for "Nashville sit-in". I'll finish reading through those articles and send you the ones I feel are most relevant. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have sent you the articles I felt might be relevant:
 * Reagon - "Let the Church Sing 'Freedom'" - Briefly mentions how "We Shall Overcome" was used in Nashville
 * Sarvis - "Leaders in the Court and Community" - See above
 * Foster - "Choreographies of Protest" - Might have a useful quote from a participant and description of tactics
 * Ramsey - "We will Be Ready Whenver They Are" - See above; also explains how the leaders of the movement were from out of town
 * Morris - "Black Southern Student Sit-in Movement" - Has a nice summary of the movement, plus some good quotations and data
 * Here are three citations I ran across while reading that looked like might be helpful:
 * Black, White, and in Color: Television and Black Civil Rights by Sasha Torres - Has a section on how important television was to the Nashville sit-ins and its larger impact (this might mention the documentary you reference above and which I saw several references to in the articles I read)
 * The Nashville Sit-In Story - Folkways 5590 - Looks like an interesting primary source to mention
 * Leo Lillard, "Student Sit-Ins in Nashville, 1960". Voices of Freedom: Oral History of the Civil Rights Movement from the 1950s through the 1980s. Ed. Henry Hampton and Steve Gayer. New York, 1990.
 * I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have Henry Hampton's book. Let me know if you need help. --Moni3 (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please drop a note on my talk page when these sources have been consulted and any necessary new information has been added to the article. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I reviewed this article for GA status. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Check the toolbox; somehow, a link managed to go dead just two days after Ealdgyth checked the sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just a note, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is my first FAC. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.