Talk:1987 Forsyth County protests

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 1987 march attended by about 20,000 protestors in Forsyth County, Georgia, has been called one of the largest civil rights demonstrations since the civil rights movement? Source: The New York Times 1987 Los Angeles Times 1987
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Gasparilla Bowl

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 05:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC).

• Excellent article, well-sourced, and certainly long enough. I'd say this is headed for FA status. The NYT source checks out, but the LA Times does not because that's a story before the march projecting the size. Regardless, the NYT is enough to sustain this hook. Earwig's tool doesn't pick up anything concerning, just properly attributed quotes and phrases like "civil rights movement". Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1987 Forsyth County protests/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting read. I'll review it over the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

JJonahJackalope, this article looks good. The only major issue is that the lead is really long. Besides that, it's just a few minor details to be sorted out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

The prose is exemplary. Only a few minor issues.

• Numerals 0-9 should be spelled out.
  • Done.
• The lead is really long for an article of this size. It only needs to highlight the most basic facts of the event. I suggest cutting it down to about half of its current size. I'll review it more thoroughly afterward.
  • Edited the lead to reduce the overall length, though do let me know if you have any further recommendations for edits there. I've come to the realization that I tend to overwrite when it comes to leads lol.
    • It's still a bit large, but I think it's within reason at this point. I removed one "however". My only other comment on the lead is about the white supremacists considered the counterdemonstration a victory. I don't see where this is supported by the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Removed that part and rephrased that sentence in the lead accordingly.
• However, Blackburn backed out of the idea – "However" is unnecessary here. It could just say "He backed out".
  • Done.
• this did not come to fruition – "did not happen" or "did not occur" would be more concise.
  • Done.

Verifiable with no original research

The sources aren't perfect, but they're reliable enough for GA. There are a lot of primary sources here (sources created at the time or by people recollecting their experiences of the time), but that's not a GA issue. The Daily Beast is questionable, but it meets the bare minimum standard and no controversial claim depends solely on this source; it would probably need to be replaced if this were FA. There are also a few opinionated or advocacy sources that require special attention and shouldn't be used for controversial claims. These are:

• Baudouin (1997), published through The Southern Party Law Center – Good. There are some about-self uses here, but they're all basic statements of fact.
• Dodd (2023), a blog (albeit one published through a source that appears reliable) – Good. One basic statement of fact.
• Phillips (2017), published in Slate – Good. The only potential issue would have been that it is used describe things as terrorism, but this is corroborated by other sources.

Other spot checks:

• Clendinen (1987) – Checked all non-bundled uses. Good except as well as ten others makes it sound like the ten others were explicitly not part of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, but the source doesn't say.
  • Yeah, the source is unclear as to where the ten buses they explicitly mentioned came from. If you have any recommendations for rephrasing that section to avoid possible confusion regarding the owners of the buses, I'd be willing to change it.
    • One option would just be to lose MARTA and say "185 buses". Alternatively, we could do the same thing that the source does, saying MARTA provided 175 buses but that wasn't enough so ten more buses were brought in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Rephrased the section in line with the second option you presented here, though feel free to edit accordingly if it sounds weird.
• Cobb (2008) – Good.
• McKay (2011) – Checked all non-bundled uses:
  • This source doesn't say that Blackburn is white. I'm assuming the other source for that sentence does?
    • Yes, the Treadwell 1987 reference mentions that Blackburn is a white man.
  • I notice that the article mentions "Dean and Tammy Carter", but this source says "Dean Williams".
    • The other two references used in that sentence, Grant 1993, p. 554 and Treadwell 1987, explicitly say Dean and Tammy Carter. I have added a footnote to explain the inconsistency, but if I were to guess, I would assume the Dean Williams mentioned in McKay 2011, p. 149 is a typo, possibly a mix-up with "Hosea Williams". Of course, this is just conjecture on my part.
  • I don't see anything about them starting at a shopping center in this source.
    • That information comes from another reference used in that sentence, Treadwell & Bearak 1987.
  • The source says about 1.25 miles, not 1 mile.
    • Changed 1-mile to 1.25-mile.
• Zatarain (1990) – Good except I don't see any mention of Ed Fields.
  • That information comes from another reference used in that sentence, Bridges 1994, pp. 127–128.

Broad in its coverage

Potential omissions:

• I notice that there's no mention of Sheriff Wesley Walraven in the article. The sources seem to indicate that he was a major player in the march's organization.
  • If you have some specific sources that mention his role, I'll be glad to look them over and make edits to include him in the article.
    • McKay (2011) p. 150 is the only one I can find after a brief search. I thought I had seen another, but maybe not. I'll leave it to you whether he's significant based on that source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential out of scope content:

• The planned march was to occur against the backdrop of several high-profile racial incidents across the country – Is it agreed that these specific examples are directly relevant or that they contributed to the protests? If it's just something that's given a passing mention in contemporary news reporting, then they might not be relevant.
  • I can definitely rephrase the section if you feel I should remove these incidents, though I will say, I included them based on newspaper coverage of the incident discussing the marches in the context of the overall political climate of the time.
    • I probably wouldn't have included it, but it's just one sentence, so I don't think it's being given undue weight. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

I'll admit, I didn't know what to expect here, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see an article about racial conflict that has no apparent NPOV issues. The prose largely gives a straightforward recounting of the events, and any potentially controversial claims are well sourced.

Stable

No recent disputes in the article history or on the talk page.

Illustrated

All images are public domain or Creative Commons. Ideally the portraits would be from 1987 or around that time, but I imagine those are difficult to find.

• Yeah, unfortunately there were no images of the events themselves on Wikimedia Commons, and while I found a few photographs of the second march online, I'm not sure if it would be possible to use them in the article under the terms of fair use. I'm fairly shaky when it comes to copyright policy on this website, but if you believe it may be possible, let me know how and I can try to add a photograph to the infobox, which I feel would help the article.
  • I'm not able to find a free one online, which is a shame, because there are a lot of good pictures. I don't know if this is what you found, but this album is the best I could find. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't accept the particular Creative Commons license that they're released under. I'm not well versed in non-free use on Wikipedia, so I usually go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which might help determine whether a non-free use image is allowed in this case. Another option might be to add the photo gallery as an external link. Alternatively, if you're really determined, you could always email the photographer on the off chance that he's willing to release the images, but I don't really understand that process either and it would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Of course, none of this is necessary for GA, but it would be cool to have some of these images. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address some of the points you raised in your GA review. Thanks for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns about the article, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

JJonahJackalope, I've added a few replies above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I've made some additional edits based on your comments above. I may look into those images you posted about at some point in the future, but for the time being I feel content with the current images used in the article. Additionally, I included some information about Wesley Walraven in the Second march section and split a paragraph into two due to length. Let me know if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, and thanks again for the review. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2023 (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.