Wikipedia:Peer review/Hands Across Hawthorne/archive1

Hands Across Hawthorne
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get a sense of whether or not this article meets FA criteria. This article has been promoted to Good status and received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I am wondering if I should try taking it to the next level... Any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks for your consideration, -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Pax85
I am working on it now and will have comments posted here within two or three days. Since you are looking to take it to FA, I will try my best to compare it to those standards. I may make some copy edits along the way as it's just in my blood. - Pax  Verbum  05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your time and assistance. I do appreciate your help, truly. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I found myself with some extra time today, so here you go... I made some small edits along the way. Anything I found significant is listed in red. Please let me know if you have any questions!

Featured articles are (any discrepancies are in red)—

well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard
 * The prose is excellent. I made a couple of small adjustments, mostly for clarity or flow.
 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
 * For the background, were the suspects identified and simply not apprehended, or do they remain unidentified?
 * Was there any other outside advertisement, besides the one Facebook post and outside organization?
 * Not from what I can tell. This source says, "It was an amazing turnout for an event that was publicized just 72 hours ago with a single Facebook page." --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article mentions the hand-linking by the mayor and the staff one week after the rally. Did this happen at City Hall?
 * Yes. I've updated the prose accordingly and also added archive-url and archive-date parameters to the source. Good catch! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
 * All sources come from independent and reliable third parties, including national coverage.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
 * Reporting is clear and unbiased.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
 * Article has been stable since the peer review was requested.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * Good lead that summarizes the article well.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
 * The headings are clear and logical, meeting the MOS.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required.
 * Everything looks good here, although I should note that citations (in terms of formatting) are not my speciality, at least not yet.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * The first two images are very similar. I like the first one, because it shows the size of the gathering. The second image, however, seems unremarkable. It's just another crowd of people, and doesn't present anything new. Perhaps an organized group photo of some of the participants, or a logo for the event/organizers, or something else...
 * Thanks for this feedback. Currently, the article displays all four free images I could find from the event. I did not attend the event myself, so I have no pictures to upload to Commons. I would definitely be open to replacing the second image if a better one could be used instead, but until then, I think I'll leave all four on display. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The second image, in conjunction with the long quote, causes a large white space directly below the image, at least on my screen. I wonder if switching the sides of the last two images would help.
 * Noted. This white space does not appear on my screen, but I can certainly see how that happens on yours. This is my frustration with the "block quote" function... I'm not sure if there's a template that can be added to eliminate the interference between the image and quote, but I'll do a little digging. There may be another quote template that would be better than the "block quote" function, too. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
 * It is a short article, but it seems appropriate for the event and coverage.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, a very well-written article. My biggest concerns are filling in some of the small blanks and those images. I enjoyed this one since I know the area so well (my university is just outside Portland, although I am currently transplanted for a few months. Thank you for this, and I am sorry it took so long to get a peer review! - Pax  Verbum  20:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, and thanks again for your help. I haven't read the above comments yet (I will soon), but I just wanted to say that I am fine with your edits to the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)