Talk:Hands Across Hawthorne/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Very solid effort, only some fairly modest changes needed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing on hold.

Here are my specific comments:

• This part of the lead – "... along Tom McCall Waterfront Park and the bridge before they were attacked at the intersection of the bridge and the Eastbank Esplanade" – is overly detailed and will have no significance for non-Portland readers. That level of geographic detail is fine for the article body, however.

I removed the end of the sentence, which takes out the intersection of the bridge and the Eastback Esplanade. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It still reads as overly detailed to me. Also, Portland Police Bureau (Oregon) should be linked to on first use here, and probably called that, especially since "Police bureau" is used later.

Removed Tom McCall Waterfront Park from lead. Now simply states that the couple was followed along the bridge prior to the assault. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• The description of the Q Center needs to be moved up to the first mention in the article body. And maybe the mention in the lead needs to either explain briefly what it is or not use the specific organization name.

Added parenthetical description to first instance, and also added description to lead. Please let me know if further changes are required. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• This construct: "Twenty-three-year-old Brad Forkner and 24-year-old Christopher Rosevear ..." is visually awkward. Can you rework the sentence it so that "23-year-old" can be used?

Better? --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetical is in the middle of one of their names, which can't be right.

Woops! Corrected. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• In "Forkner and Rosevear claimed a group of five men ...", the use of "claimed" raises the suspicion that their account might not be true. Is such suspicion prevalent? If yes, that needs to be expanded upon. If no, simply using "said" is better per WP:SAY.

Done. I have not seen sources questioning the couples' accounts. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The "Sources used to verify national attention" footnote shows the same source twice. And it's not much of a source. If this attack only received regional attention, say that, don't try to stretch it.

Well, it is the same story but in different cities. This is not my attempt to stretch the coverage--the story was reported in national publications and I linked a San Diego story as well. I am happy to remove one of the Melloy links if you wish. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

After taking a second look, I went ahead and removed the Boston publication. I left the Washington, D.C. reference. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the article is overstating the national attention the attack and the rally got. Of the current footnotes 14, 15, 25, and 30, every one is a gay-oriented publication. And only one newspaper story in the Northwest outside of Portland is cited. So the sentence "The attack was reported throughout the Pacific Northwest and the nation." would be better as "The attack was reported by newspapers in the Pacific Northwest and by gay-oriented media outlets nationwide." And "Details of the rally were reported by various national publications." would be better as "Details of the rally were reported by various gay-oriented national publications." (Or use "LGBT-themed" or whatever term you like.) The point is, it wasn't the New York Times or Time Magazine or USA Today covering this. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Cascade Aids Project" should be written "Cascade AIDS Project" according to their own web page.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The second image of the bridge (from 2005) is kind of redundant. Are there any available closeups of the people linking while on the bridge?

There is this one, which I felt was not very informative or helpful:

Hands Across Hawthorne participants

These images at Commons were uploaded by a fellow WikiProject Oregon member and was found on Flickr. You can view additional CC-licensed pictures from the event at the following link:

• http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hands+across+hawthorne&l=cc&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1

If you see more appropriate images, let me know. I have not uploaded images from Flickr before but I can either learn or request that another project member do so. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I like this image. It shows how dense the crowd was along the bridge, which isn't evident from the other one, and it also gives the best idea of the demographics of the participants.

Replaced image. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another option is to change the image of the Hawthorne Bridge. I chose the current image because it shows both the bridge and waterfront park, but there are other images here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The caption of the existing "Crowd of rally participants near the Hawthorne Bridge" image should indicate where it is taken ... is that the waterfront park too?

Now states "Crowd of rally participants at the intersection of Tom McCall Waterfront Park and the Hawthorne Bridge". --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Did any conservative or homophobic organizations denounce the rally?

I did not read of any such actions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't clear what the purpose of "Hands Across Monroe" was. A general message of acceptance, solidarity with Portland, or a specific response to the Forkner–Rosevear attack?

Added "in solidarity with the Portland community", which is according to source. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Consider adding Category:LGBT civil rights demonstrations to the article.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I'm a little leery of an article about such a recent event going GA, but I guess it should be okay. That two authors are involved makes it more likely that the article will be updated if there are further developments to add. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I will be looking for updates. As you mentioned, this article was improved by and received a thorough review by another active contributor and WP Oregon project member. I believe all of your concerns have been addressed with the exception of the redundant bridge image and possibly the duplicate news story (national coverage), which I will address once I receive further comments/instruction. Thank you so much for your assistance! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it is worth noting at BlueOregon also reported on The Oregonian's coverage? I don't want to get too far away from the focus of the article. At the same time, I don't want to leave out relevant details. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that source looks a little too editorial/argumentative, and the protest against the paper's non-coverage and the paper's explanation is already covered in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem! I hope your concerns have been addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the image of the crowd to the "Rally" section--didn't make much sense to have it displayed in the "Assault" section. Let me know if you see a better placement for the image (currently they are stacked at the start of the section). I can replace the Hawthorne Bridge picture in the assault section if needed. Also, should the lead image be larger of left alone? --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better to have one picture per section rather than have the rally ones stacked. How about moving the second one back to the "Assault" section, and change the caption to say something like, "Crowd of rally participants at the intersection of Tom McCall Waterfront Park, where the events leading to the attack began, and the Hawthorne Bridge". Also, the third picture's caption should make clear that they're standing on part of the bridge. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Looks great! Thanks again for all of your assistance. Please let me know if there are any other concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All my concerns and suggestions have been satisfied and I've passed the article. Good work. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.