Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Negro Motorist Green Book/archive2


 * 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

The Negro Motorist Green Book

 * Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for consideration as a Featured Article. It's already a Good Article and has had a good response from readers. The subject is an interesting one, and it may be a good candidate for the Main Page for the next Martin Luther King Day. It has already been through a FA review but unfortunately didn't attract enough interest from reviewers first time round, so this is a second try. Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor comment
 * The article mixes "African-American" and "African American". P. S. Burton  (talk)  00:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my read through, that's the only other thing that jumped out. It's about 60%/40% split currently. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to prefer African American, so I've standardised on that. Prioryman (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'African American' is supposed to be used as the noun, but hyphenated as 'African-American' when used as an adjective, as in African-American doctor.Parkwells (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D
This is a very interesting, if depressing, article. I have the following comments:
 * "Black Americans employed as salesmen, entertainers, and athletes also found themselves traveling more often for work purposes" - "found themselves" is needlessly passive, and " more often" is unclear (more often than whom?). I'd suggest tweaking this to "Many Black Americans employed as salesmen, entertainers, and athletes also frequently travelled by car" or similar
 * It looks like this has already been changed. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The "Traveling while black" section would benefit from material explaining the extent to which the incidence of barriers varied across the country: it's stated that it was problematic everywhere, and implied that it was particularly bad in the south - can this be plainly stated?
 * I've added more info about discrimination in the North which I hope makes it clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks good Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Green Book was conceived in 1932 and first published in 1936 by Victor H. Green" - did he self-publish it as this implies?
 * As far as I can tell, yes. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How did Green research/develop the guide? (especially the early editions?)
 * This isn't spelled out in the sources, unfortunately, but it seems likely to have been word of mouth research. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Published continuously from 1936 to 1940" - should this be "Published annually..."? ("continuously" suggests it was frequently updated)
 * Good point, I've changed this. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to needlessly complicate things, but do we know for sure that it was only published annually? I know some books have multiple distinct print runs in a year, without revisions. Perhaps specify that new editions were published annually? --  Zanimum (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've reworded this to "With new editions published annually..." Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the 'Legacy' section needs to be written as dot points - I'd suggest tweaking this into paragraphs
 * Looks like someone else did that. I've restored the original paragraph format. Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Searching Google Scholar produces some interesting-looking results which haven't been used as references - were you able to consult these? Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I've not seen some of those sources before. I've got some useful material from one of them and will see if there's anything worth using in the others. Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please ping me when you've finished drawing on the sources? I'm strongly leaning towards support, and will do so once the expansion process is complete. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm about done. Prioryman (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Concern about presentation of Mallard lynching in GA
Hi, you've done a terrific job on this, and expanding what I remember of the article from an earlier time. I share the concern expressed by Carrite in 2013 about how the Mallard lynching in GA is presented, and really don't think it belongs in this topic. I think saying it is part of the general risk of DWB is an overstatement. The mob knew where Mallard was for the evening and where they could intercept him. It was a local lynching expressing local tensions. Yes, they attacked him in his car, but I don't think it makes the case for general risk of lynching when blacks were traveling by car. Sadly, blacks in the South faced the risk of lynchings at all times; and studies had earlier shown that many lynchings came out of competition and envy - social control. The article Carrite referred to is well documented and shows how the events were part of local issues.Parkwells (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking into this; the way it's presented in the article corresponds with how it's treated by one of the sources on the Green Book. If there's a clash between sources then I'll need to work out how to deal with that. Prioryman (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, having had a look at this I think I'll leave it out. The sources do seem to contradict each other and without any indication of which is the more accurate, it's best to omit it. Prioryman (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Support An utterly fascinating topic. I found it interesting how the entire basis of race relations can be so clearly illustrated through a book about motoring. My only concern, and it's a minor one, is that there are a lot of long paragraphs. These can be hard to read, and you might want to consider breaking some of them up. I did one such edit, check it and see if you think it improves things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Support, since most concerns above seem to have been addressed. As Maury points out, it's an amazing microcausm of larger race issues. I'd personally keep the Mallard reference, but then I don't think the article would be deficient without it. That's just my peripherally informed opinion. (I don't personally find any of the paragraphs long for an encyclopedia.) --  Zanimum (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey

 * I'm not sure why I didn't support after my concerns were addressed last time, but I do now. A couple of things, though:
 * I still think "minefield" is unencyclopaedic vocabulary.
 * I think it's perfectly defensible as a description - it highlights the arbitrary and unpredictable nature of the problems which black travelers faced. Prioryman (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe "Black" is normally capitalized when it refers to race
 * Not on Wikipedia, it seems - see African American and other related articles. Prioryman (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus to pass? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so, but do we also need a source review? Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's it -- I did list a request at WT:FAC a while back but there are several to get through. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review

 * ISBN numbers: some have dashes, others don't. Either is acceptable, but you should be consistent.
 * Thanks for taking this on. I'll tackle each of the issues you raise below.
 * I've standardised on no-dashes. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Decaro and Trembaris: the dates are usually copyright dates, not publication dates.
 * Franz/Smulyan: you list the editors, but not the chapter's author.
 * That's because the book itself doesn't list the chapter's author. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're citing a particular essay from that chapter that does have a named author. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now - I've fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Primeau: you should have the publisher's full name.
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hall, Seiler, and Trembaris have odd capitalization in their titles.
 * I've fixed Seiler. Trembanis is as per Google Books and Hall is as per the original publisher . Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wright: ISBN is wrong.
 * Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Foster, Hall, Ramsey, and Young Armistead: these should have a JSTOR/doi/ISSN/OCLC number. Doesn't matter which, I think, but one of them would be useful.
 * Good idea, done. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ramsey: needs publisher and date. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The HuffPost piece is probably OK as far as reliability goes, but it should have an access date to match the other web sources.
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Towne: the link is dead.
 * It seems to have disappeared from the website. Oh well, the link's not important anyway; it was a web version of a paper article and we still have the page number and month of publication, so that should be fine. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the lede: do you need the citations there? The theory, generally, is that anything in the lede is already covered in greater detail in the main article text, so there's no need to cite it twice. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I've taken out most of the citations, but left the ones covering direct quotes. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, everything seems to have been resolved. One thing I'd note is that the way you did the JSTOR links is fine, but another way (which I find easier) is to use the "jstor=" field in the citation template. That way, you only have to enter the number, not the whole url. But the way you did it is fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.