Wikipedia:Peer review/Harvey Milk/archive1

Harvey Milk

This peer review discussion has been closed.

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've rewritten the article within the past few weeks, and I'm interested in as much input from interested readers as possible before taking to GA or FAC. A film of Milk's life will be released in November. I would like to make sure the article is engaging and comprehensive. I'll be adding a few images within the next day or so, I hope. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'd suggest GAC first and then perhaps another peer review to get some more eyes on perhaps copyediting. This sentence in the lead: Not until 1978, when San Francisco re-organized their supervisor selection to come from neighborhood districts—as opposed to city-wide ballots—was Milk successfully elected. - might read better if reorganized to "Milk was not successfully elected until 1978, when..." as opposed to the other way around, which sounds a bit long/run-on. I'll try to go through the rest in more detail and add additional comments later. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt. No doubt it needs a copy edit when it gets stable. You marked the notes in small text. In considering ... crap... now I can't think of the word. The policy to make all the material readable for all browsers and those with poor eyesight. It's really small on my browser. I'll take all suggestions, however. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the word. Stupid words. I took the small tags out for accessibility issues. --Moni3 (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro is poor. It should be possible to read it standalone as a summary of the main points of the article. Currently most of the intro is just a biography in chronological order, not an explanation of the subject's most important deeds. More individual pickinesses: In the second paragraph, Milk goes from "up against the existing gay political establishment" to "leader of the gay political movement" in a confusing jump. The sentence "his successes gave hope to disenfranchised gays around the country" is POV and probably inaccurate: were gays actually disenfranchised [denied the vote]? The title "city supervisor" is misleading for those unfamiliar with San Francisco government: "member of the board of supervisors" would give a better idea of the job. On a non-intro point: avoid sucking in material that conceptually belongs in other articles. The first paragraph of the "Castro Street" section should be a one-sentence summary, the rest belongs in The Castro, San Francisco, California#History. jnestorius^(talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I understand that the article should be a standalone summary of the article, and it is without going overboard. Much more detail and it would completely take over, making it another lead that ate Detroit.
• I think it's reasonable to change city supervisor to a member of the Board of Supervisors. I'll do that.
• I also think a tweak of words would make it clear that he became a leader of the gay movement, clearing up that confusion. I didn't see that, and I'm glad that was pointed out.
• The remark about disenfranchised gays is not inaccurate. In a quote from Milk later in the article, he states he represented "the gay street people", and one of his "things" was telling people he got a call from someone from Altoona, Pennsylvania, or some kid from somewhere who needed to find a place to go. He told this story to reporters regularly. "Hope" became a theme in his appearances, and has become a large part of his legacy.
• As you pointed out, not only the intro should be stand-alone, but the article should be as well. There's a lot of background about how the Castro became a gay mecca in the 1970s, and the forces of demographics and politics that not only led to Milk's popularity and effectiveness, but his assassination and the riots that followed. Milk's history is the same as the Castro's, in many ways. I'm quite comfortable with the background info in the article.
• I appreciate the time you took to give comments. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to rewrite the intro, and let me see what you want. If I were reviewing, and you added a 4th paragraph focusing on accomplishments, I'd be happy with that. On the other hand, the 3 paragraphs there already are kind of long, and they are probably more readable, more narrative-like, than what I'm guessing you want. Your "up against..." comment is in line with this; you want more, Moni doesn't. I could go either way.
  • "were gays actually disenfranchised [denied the vote]?" MWOS gives: "to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote". Although the word is used often in the context of voting per se, when I hear people talk about social movements, it's always referring to empowering (sorry for the jargon) them to organize, become effective, and be heard. There is plenty of support in the Tributes section for this claim, and we can add more if you like. It's hard to see how the claim could be false.
  • "member of the board of supervisors": good call.
  • Castro street: This was the first time it ever happened that an openly gay man was able to get elected to public office in the U.S. Doesn't that make you wonder how that could have happened? Isn't it relevant that there was a large gay and lesbian population ... and how did that happen? I can see someone at FAC saying that a sentence or two should be shaved. It's hard to buy the claim that the paragraph is irrelevant to his election. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
• Only thing to note is I might trim down the external links section, it's getting large.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks E, that does help! I'll check the EL's now and talk it over with Moni. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, most of the links are helpful and not controversial, I think: the opera, various archives, etc. The two schools named after Milk have at least some connection with his diversity message. If we need to remove some ELs, I'd probably pick any or all of:

• The Forgotten Populist (an essay; if the essay says useful things, we can always put them in the article, the essay uses the same Shilts source that the article does),
• The Harvey Milk Recreational Arts Center in SF (although it's named after him, I don't see any connection to him)
• Eureka Valley/Harvey Milk Branch Library (ditto) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)