Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White Night riots/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 Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009.

White Night riots

 * Nominator(s): Firestorm  Talk 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be an example of some of Wikipedia's best work, and I feel that it meets the Featured Article criteria. This is a self nom, though Moni3 has also helped get it where it is today. Firestorm Talk 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text is done present (thanks), but has some problems : Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is considerable duplication between alt text and caption. Material that is in the caption should be omitted from the alt text; see WP:ALT . This material includes "Castro Street", "San Francisco City Hall", "Rioters", "Market Street". This material also falls under the category of the next bullet.
 * Some of the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the images, and needs to be moved to the caption (and sourced) or removed. Please see WP:ALT . This text includes "Modern-day", "police" (in "police cars"), "one person is rolling a round object down the street" (sorry, I can't see that), "National Mall", "San Francisco City Hall", "LGBT pride"
 * "pro-equality slogans" is mildly POV. Replace by quoting one or two of the slogans, as examples.
 * "sad expressions". I see "serious" rather than "sad".
 * Reword for brevity by removing "can be seen in" (change to "is in").
 * Misspelling: "desplaying"
 * I have fixed the concerns you have laid out in this edit. The one thing that I haven't done is the "LGBT Pride" one, because that's not actually part of the article. That image is in the LGBT navbox template at the bottom, that is transcluded onto this page. If I did anything improperly, please let me know. Alt text in general is fairly new to Wikipedia, and this is my first FAC. Thanks, The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the flag problem with this edit to Template:LGBT. Thanks for your quick work, which fixed all the other alt text problems. Eubulides (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Took care of both dab links. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 02:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - for now. There are some quite serious problems with the standard of prose throughout.  I'll list a few here but the article IMO needs a thorough copyedit.  Apologies if this sounds personal but I'm commenting on the article, not its contributors.
 * "When American settlers began to go west in the 18th and 19th centuries, they were primarily male prospectors and miners." - go west from where? Not everyone understands the geography of the continent.  And why were they prospectors and miners?
 * "In this society male romantic friendships were not unknown and tolerated when few women were near" - remove the first half of the sentence and you get "not unknown and tolerated when few women were near" - so they were not tolerated? There's a missing word and comma there.
 * "The city's notorious brothel district–named the Barbary Coast–earned it a reputation as a somewhat lawless and amoral society. It was also given the nickname "Sodom by the Sea."" - the city, the district, or the society?
 * "Prohibition ended some of the public spaces for drinking, but as soon as it was repealed, gay bars began to open in North Beach, where they were visited by bohemians, writers, and tourists" - how do you 'end' a public space for drinking? It doesn't quite make sense.  Gay bars began to open - how about "Gay bars were opened on North Beach"?
 * "When troop buildup for World War II commenced, San Francisco became a major debarkation point for servicemen stationed in the Pacific Theater." - I'd just chop the 'troop buildup' completely and replace it with "During World War II San Fran..."
 * "The U.S. military, which was concerned with male homosexuality, actively dismissed any servicemen caught in known gay establishments with blue discharges." - concerned with? That sounds very much like 'engaged in'.  Why were they concerned about homosexuality, and why 'actively' dismiss, unless you mean they had an active policy to do so?
 * "Enough men were discharged from the military to create an active community in San Francisco following World War II. Rather than go home to face ostracism, they stayed in the city." - I thought there already existed an active community?


 * This is just the first section. Reading through, I can see the same problems repeated throughout, including the use of idioms&mdash;enough in total to create a very long list. Parrot of Doom (talk)
 * I have corrected the problems you mentioned in that first section. I didn't actually write that part of the article (Moni3 did), but I will look over the rest of it and see what I can fix. It has also been through a peer review, and I have had other editors provide feedback on it. If you could tell me what types of things need to be changed, it would be greatly appreciated. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's better, but prose problems remain throughout. Its quicker if I just trawl through and correct what I see, so that's what I'll do.  It'll take a while though.  Meanwhile I'll insert tags on anything that isn't clear - click the edit button nearest to each and you'll see a question affixed to most of them.  By the way, you should decide on the correct nomenclature for 'gays' - is it homosexuals, or gays?  Both words are used throughout  'Gay bar' is probably ok however. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * White_Night_riots is somewhat tricky. The section begins by explaining the sentence, but then breaks into a reflective mode describing the reasons for the lenient sentence.  This is at odds with the general chronology of the article up to this point which is mainly concerned with matters of historical fact.  You should consider moving two of these paragraphs elsewhere, perhaps a section that analyses the probable causes of the riots, somewhere near the 'Legacy' section I would suggest. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "In a 1984 interview, Jones gave a voice to the feeling in the crowd as they began to group together on Castro Street after news of the verdict spread, stating, " - this doesn't quite read correctly to me. Was he expressing an opinion on his participation, or was he using the interview to restate that feeling of the crowd at the time? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Police Department leadership, which was unaccustomed to an angry gay crowd, wasn't sure how to handle the situation." - what is the difference between an angry gay crowd, and an angry crowd? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The protesters were convinced that the police and prosecution had conspired to avoid a severe sentence for White, although Prosecutor Thomas Norman denied this." - this may be better placed just before the sentence about police confusion (if appropriate) Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Electric trollies" - needs linking, trollies mean different things in other countries Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "According to journalist and author Randy Shilts, the White Night Riots provided a fitting end to the legend of Harvey Milk." - legend - sounds distinctly POV to me, unless its part of a quote, in which case the line should be in quotation marks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading through, the article definitely needs a section that fully analyses the sentencing, and the riots, and the legacy. The present 'legacy' section doesn't really offer the reader any conclusion as to the historical legacy of the riots - it simply gives more historical detail.  I don't quite understand exactly how the subject of the article had a lasting effect on California society, the police, the politicians, etc.  While changes are discussed, there isn't anything that guides me toward an understanding of why exactly this event was so notable.  Other than the points I've raised however, I think its a fascinating article and deserved of FA status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.