Wikipedia:Peer review/Rock Springs Massacre/archive2

Rock Springs Massacre
(See previous review here).

Looking for overall comments, going for GA, eventually FA with this one.

Current issues (any elaboration on specifics would be appreciated):


 * Citations: Aware that I need more (IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)) (if you see anywhere that needs fact, please add it. Also, aware that some are not linked, as I retrieved many of the articles from microfiche I didn't originally have web links, I am in the process of finding digital copies via research database and will slowly be adding links to increase verifiability. : )
 * Need for copy edit: any specific problems you see, it would be helpful if you can point them out.
 * See comment below, request filed with League of Copyeditors. One user has done some tweaks already. : ) IvoShandor 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lack of images- added some, still need more, should be some public domain stuff out there. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lead length: expanded a bit, may need more.
 * WP:MOS issues: again, point these out; I can think of WP:DASH, but there are probably other problems.
 * Further reading section is a bit redundant at this point, but I am using it for reference right now, it will probably be reworked though: Still plan to rework. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted for now. Will add non-referenced reading later in due process, probably after GAC. IvoShandor 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wondering about:
 * Some possible POV issues, how connected is the other violence? Do the sources confirm this? If not, are there others that do? Worked on this heavily, please let me know what you think. IvoShandor 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Still need WP:SUMMARY for post massacre violence section. ✅ IvoShandor 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs additional sources for description of riot. IvoShandor 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could use some suggestions for some more wikilinks.
 * Is it too lengthy, where could it be trimmed? What info specifically?
 * Are any relevant aspects of the topic missing, glaring omissions?
 * Any other suggestions?
 * Major prose issues?

Thanks ahead of time for anyone who responds. I worked pretty hard on this article. IvoShandor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I cleaned this article up a lot for POV, any help would be greatly appreciated. I think this could be FA someday. IvoShandor 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment: I have filed a request with the League of Copyeditors for an outside copy edit. IvoShandor 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

POV discussion
''The following is from the Rock Springs Massacre talk page. It has been copied here as it developed in the midst of this peer review. Feel free to add to it.''

The subsections from "Post-massacre violence" are the makings of separate articles entirely, and are not about the Rock Springs Massacre directly; they should be placed in other articles and each section here should have a "Main" template; all that's necessary to say is that other violence broke out; this is not a history of THOSE events, but is supposed to be only about Rock Creek. Also, if stuff like this is trotted out as though it's connected, but some source hasn't said it's connected, stringing all this in one place to expound a thesis about post-massacre violence is actually original research, and a no-no. But it's clear from the tone of some of the content here that there's a thesis being expounded ("the NYT was 'just as guilty'" and other POV language). Please remember this is an encylcopedia article and NOT a political tract.Skookum1 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This comment could have been before the peer review was posted but the article is still being worked on. Some of the sources HAVE connected the events to Rock Springs. So it's not original research. Guilty was probably a bad word choice, but they did do it. Will look for such things as I work. Political tract? IvoShandor 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "just as guilty" is clearly a political statement; also IMO is the seeming effort in the article to tie in general historical materials and also other not-necessarily-connected events; it comes off like a tract, and is full of not-neutral language; like so many Chinese-American/Canadian history articles. Just the facts, please, no editorializing.  And no introducing extraneous materials as if they had to do with things; if the sources make that connection, it should specify that it's the sources that made the connection, and which sources.Skookum1 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what the inline citations are for. I have no political agenda related to 19th century America. IvoShandor 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I would hardly call a wave of anti-Chinese violence beginning with Rock Springs and encompassing events for the next six months a general connection, the Oregon stuff might be stretching it, but I thnk you're wrong. IvoShandor 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, there is absolutely no question this was a racially motivated attack, even the President agreed with that assessment, in 1885. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * And what in my post led you to think I was disputing that? Your re-asserting it seems to indicate that you think it was THAT that I was criticizing; but that's just more POVism, i.e. assuming that a criticism is about something that it's not.  The point remains that the language of this article is very accusatory.  And THAT is POV.  It's possible to report facts and events without brow-beating people or using invective.....Skookum1 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So why don't you just fix it instead of making general objections. I have changed some of the wording but as the writer it can be hard to flesh out stuff, at least for me, that I have done myself.IvoShandor 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well. Go ahead, if its just POV, it won't matter to the material. I'm not that worried about, if there are any problems presented by your edits they can be fixed and discussed later. Go for it, it would really help. Sorry if I seemed hostile, I think I missed your point at first. IvoShandor 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the events to edit conscionably; as you can tell I'm also prolix - infamously so - and my edits tend to be emendations; I find it easier to point out issues here, unles I know the material well.Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed some POV wording, a lot of which is leftover from when this article was started, about eleven days after I registered for Wikipedia. : ) The Post Massacre section is already set up for WP:SUMMARY, I believe the sources confirm that this violence was related to the massacre in Rock Springs, but if you don't please point out where and I will try to verify. Remember there is a difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable" information. Also, if you are using caps for emphasis, could you please use italics, it looks like you're yelling. IvoShandor 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in another parallel case, the Anti-Oriental Riots in Vancouver were seen as some historians as an offshoot of or reaction to the Boxer Rebellionsm the ongoing Nationalist uprising after that, and fears of Asian imperialism in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War, and also by various labour practices of Chinese workers and Chinese labour contractors; yet to mention any of these, despite their presence in sources, is dismissed as "racist propaganda" and no recent histories go anywhere near the background of the events, choosing instead to condemn the antagonists instead of understanding "why" - it's so much easier to paint people simply as goons, or to try and boil everything down to "racism" and "racists" (and "racist" is often used as a dehumanizing term, often by people who are very racist themselves....). So I appreciate your un-POV'ing this; the point, central point, of this is what THIS article is about, or supposed to be about. "Splinter events" certainly have their place; but if they're so notable as to be mentioned, they should ahve their own articles, and a summary of those that sources state are connected, should be made (but no others).Skookum1 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you care if I moved this discussion to the 2nd peer review? So it would be archived? This article will take some work but I can make it shine. I wrote it way back when I was a wee little youngling wikipedian, didn't know as much about policy as I do now. That and no one ever mentioned this before, some help that other peer review was! ; ) IvoShandor 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)