Talk:Black Lives Matter/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Midnightblueowl in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply


This is an important and topical article - if there are no objections, I shall provide a review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

First things first, a lot of good work has gone on here, so whether it passes the GAN as a GA or not the editors responsible still warrant commendation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Referencing

Lede

Prose

Images

My general concern about this article is that at present it feels a bit scrappy. A fact here, a fact there. To a great extent, this is because of the source material used. News articles from the web tend to give a snapshot of a 'current event' like a demonstration without offering wider critical analysis of it. This is where academic studies of the movement would be beneficial. Ideally of course we would have a wider published history of the movement that we could draw upon, but as this is an ongoing event we probably won't have any of those for several years at least. My gut instinct would be to not pass this article at this time. However, right now I'm going to put this article out for a second opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

If possible, could it be made clear which of these points has been responded to by the nominator? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Second Opinion My caveat here is that I only read through the article for prose since that seemed to be Midnightblueowl's main concern. I agree that the prose can use some work, a while to go before FA quality, but it is surely "clear and concise" per 1a so I think it is within the criteria. Secondly, while I also agree that the lack of academic sources is unfortunate (perhaps I'll compile some for people to use, remind me if anyone is interested) I'm actually very pleased with the breadth of coverage the authors have achieved. Looking towards FA, I think those sources will be necessary, but for GA I think it addresses all the facets of the topic sufficiently. As long as everything else is to your liking, Midnightblueowl, I would recommend promotion. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Further concerns

edit

At this juncture I feel that the most appropriate move is to pass this article as a GA. I'm still fairly concerned about its over-reliance on press sources at the expense of academic publications, but I appreciate that BLM is a current event and thus the historical studies and such like probably have not been produced yet. I am also fairly happy that it meets the GA criteria, and clearly Wugapodes agreed on that point when I requested a second opinion. Congratulations on all the good work that you have put into this article, JumpLike23. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply