Talk:Castro Sweep/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The street intersection image gives an author that doesn't match the original uploader, and the source is just pointing back to the image instead of saying "own work". However, I can't see anything that makes me think this is not licensed correctly.

File:Frank JORDAN, SF mayoral candidate October 1999.jpg says it's by Nancy Wong, but that links to the user, Edmunddantes. It looks to me as if the user uploaded someone else's work; this looks like a professional photo and I think we need a proper source if we're to believe it's not copyrighted.
- Replaced image with a new image.
Typo in the Clews book: should be "Fighting for our Rights".
- Fixed typo
Laird is in the source list but is uncited; suggest moving it to "Further reading".
- Done.
I can see that the description of the sweep as a police riot is supported by multiple sources, but are there (reliable) sources that characterize this differently? I'm thinking of both press coverage in contemporary papers and more recent historical descriptions (though I doubt there's much of that). This is not something that would need to be in the lead, but for example in the "Aftermath" section we don't talk about national press coverage; much of the press was much more automatically pro-law enforcement back then, and hostile coverage would be worth mentioning.
- Unfortunately, I was unable to find much contemporary coverage of the event or I would have included those references.
"As the protesting continued, several onlookers and other participants arrived": "several" seems the wrong word -- it implies a handful. Perhaps just "more" instead?
- Changed.
Two uses of "Additionally" close to each other in the "Police and city response" section.
- Edited to avoid redundant use of "Additionally"
"Several historians have posited on the rationale": clumsy; perhaps "theorized about the rationale"?
- Changed.

Looks very good; cleanly written and concise. Most of the above is minor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JJonahJackalope, just checking to see if you're planning to work on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, apologies, I must have missed that this review had taken place! However, I have made some edits to the article that I feel address the points you have made above. Thank you for beginning this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding the article, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good. Earwig finds no issues. Spotchecks:

FN 7 cites "According to the GLBT Historical Society, the disciplinary hearings revealed the weakness of San Francisco's civilian oversight system": this is a bit too close to the source, which says "numerous disciplinary proceedings that revealed the weakness of the city’s civilian police oversight system". I think if you change this to a direct quote from "revealed" to the end of the sentence that would resolve this; you are attributing the opinion inline, after all, so I don't want to say this is a verification failure.
- Changed to a direct quote.
FN 8 cites "The Reverend Jim Schexnayder, the director of HIV/AIDS services for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, was on Castro Street at the time and was ordered into a nearby building by a SFPD officer": verified.
FN 11 cites "While in previous marches the police would close off a single lane to traffic": verified, but I think we should attribute this in the text to "a march participant", rather than risk giving the impression we're quoting police policy.
- Edited accordingly.
FN 13 cites "The march ended around 7 p.m. as the protestors approached the intersection of Castro and Market streets": verified.

Also, I happened to see on your talk page that Gerald Koskovich suggested this as a source; have you been able to consult it to see if there's more information from it you could use? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added information from the Koskovich 2002 source.

Mike Christie, just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made some additional edits to the article that address the points you raised in this review. Notably, I have incorporated some information from the Koskovich 2002 source that either back up or clarify some of the statements already made in the article. Thank you again for performing this review, and if there is anything else, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those fixes look good. I read through again and made some copyedits that you may want to check, and I came up with one or two small final queries:

"Several protestors received payments from the city due to damages sustained in the sweep. A group of citizens who had been present at the sweep later sued the city and settled out of court, with the city paying out about $200,000." Are these the same thing? Saying it this way makes it sound as though these were two separate damages payments; is that really the case?
- Edited this section of the article to indicate that they are the same thing.
The second of those sentences is sourced to note 2; the usual convention when using a note is to put the sources for the information in the article text in as citations separately from the note. Here I think that means that FNs 7, 8 and/or 22 should be added to the end of the sentence just before note 2.
- Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, just wanted to ping you because I have made further edits to the page to address your two queries. If there are any further questions, comments, or concerns regarding the article, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]