Jump to content

Talk:Impeachment March/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of cities

[edit]

Like Not My Presidents Day, I am creating a list of cities with participating marches and other activities, so we can divide and conquer expanding the article:

Done
Done

Feel free to help expand, or check off an entry from the list if you've completed research and added as much content as appropriate about the city to the article. @Megalibrarygirl: Pinging in case you are interested. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it, Another Believer. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! I am working on the map at the moment. I have some work obligations the next few days, but I'd love to work together on this article and do another Good article co-nom, if you're interested. No pressure, or rush. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we start making the content alphabetical by city, like we did for Not My Presidents Day, and create subsections if needed (possibly California?) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Seems the article somehow duplicated itself, perhaps as the result of an edit conflict. Can you decide which half you want to keep (I assume the second half)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer:, I think I may have caused the problem. Sorry and I apologize for the slow reply. I'll be updating the article more tomorrow, hopefully. Today was a clean the house and go to meetings day. (mostly) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All of the cities listed above have been added to the map, which now appears in the article. I've left the bulleted list to serve as a checklist for confirming which cities we've fully researched. This is a similar approach User:Megalibrarygirl and I used for the Not My Presidents Day article, which worked well. Feel free to check off an entry once all details for that location have been incorporated into the article, or expand the list if addition city names emerge. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Things sure are coming along nicely! I count just 8 cities left to research, then I'm happy to request a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors and co-nominate for Good article status, unless you object for any reason. Thanks so much for your work on this article! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: that sounds awesome. I'll see what else I can dig up for the remaining cities, though I suspect we may have most of it covered. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think we're in a very good position here in terms of completeness, but I appreciate your willingness to double check for each city with me. Teamwork! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With just 2 cities left, I've requested a copy edit, which will hopefully be completed sooner than later. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Just a quick update: I am still plugging in some inline citations, but went ahead and nominated the article for Good status. The banner at the top of the article is making at least one GOCE member hestitant to review the article. Hopefully the banner will be removed soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: thanks for the update! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas

[edit]

Hi guys! Great work on this! As an FYI, the Vegas July 2 event happened: Their FB page (https://www.facebook.com/events/1811304489198206) displays pix and a video (apparently at the downtown rally) in the feed, which also shows at least one pic and some discussion about a small counter-protest contingent. Jetpower (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetpower: Thanks! Are you aware of any secondary coverage (such as newspaper articles)? Facebook is not considered reliable sourcing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail tag

[edit]

I removed the excessive detail tag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I restored. Given that merger discussion is leaning towards merger, this article has too much trivia and violates WP:NOTNEWS. 20 of the 24 references are from news-stories dated 2/3 July. – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are excessive details, then just remove them or discuss them here. I don't think the tag is needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may. But I don't want my editing effort to be seen as contentious or disruptive. Let's see how the merger discussion shakes out, and then trim the info. – S. Rich (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the tag may influence the ongoing discussion, imo. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I think the commenting editors are savy enough to figure out what they think is best for WP. – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl and Funcrunch: Do either of you think this tag is necessary? I don't especially when a specific reason is not given. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see Funcrunch already removed the tag. I agree 100%, and since Srich32977 is not giving specific reasoning, I am removing the tag again as I continue to expand the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove the tag; you misread the diff. I didn't think the tag was particularly necessary, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to remove it. Funcrunch (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! My apologies. Sorry for the misunderstanding here, but I'm not adding the tag back because I still think Srich needs to be willing to edit the article to address their concerns or be willing to provide a more specific explanation for the tag's inclusion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer and Funcrunch: the level of detail is no different from other country-wide events that we've worked on, including one that went to GA status. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta

[edit]

@DanaNoir33: Please review the sourcing to understand why the Wikipedia article currently says what it does, and not what you're saying. Can you providing sources to verify your claim? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources to clarify the details of our march. http://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/news/politics/hundreds-attend-trump-impeachment-five-mile-march-through-atlanta/85-409534109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaNoir33 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DanaNoir33: This article is about the Not My Presidents Day demonstration. The Impeachment March was held in July 2017. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Impeachment March/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not an issue for GA, but is there any reason to have the lead partially cited? Neither of the cited points seems controversial.
  • Do we need the statement from Zimmerman that Fourth of July protests have a long history? This is not mentioned in the body (which it should be if it's going to be in the lead). It's just a general statement. If you want to keep it, I think it's a background statement that would fit better in the body and doesn't need to be in the lead. That sentence also has a grammatical issue: "marks" requires a singular subject.
  • Organizers for the march expressed that they felt that President Trump is in violation of the United States Constitution: make this "was" in violation; they probably feel he still is but we're doing historical narrative here. I would also consider combining this with the next sentence to make it less wordy: perhaps "Organizers of the march felt that President Trump was in violation of the United States Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause, and that he had committed obstruction of justice by dismissing Sally Yates and James Comey."
  • Why are we mentioning the cancelled march in Portland? Seems like a minor fact; is it really noteworthy?
  • The march organizers who are not notable and have no other interesting attributes probably don't need to be named: Diana Dalnes, Suzy Scullin, David Love, Gina Merchan, Sharyn Richardson, Karan Barnett Shirk, Natasha Salgado. Possibly Adriene Avripas too, though at least she's head of a relevant organization.
    • So, your suggestion goes against the feedback we received for the similar Not My Presidents Day article, where we were asked to be more specific about who was organizing events and why. Again, I see where you are coming from, but I think adding mention of event organizers is relevant and helpful when they are confirmed by secondary coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, it's not something that falls under WP:GACR; I mentioned it just as an opinion about what is worth including. Imagine reading this, as someone unfamiliar with the march; you'll keep seeing these names that aren't linked and have almost no context. They interrupt the flow of real information (what marches happened and where). But it's fine to leave it in if you prefer to. I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Cheri Bustos and Dave Loebsack are in Congress, can we get links for them, even if they're redlinks?

--That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... @Mike Christie: Thank you for reviewing this article. I am usually very quick to respond to good article reviews, but I was helping to run a Wikipedia edit-a-thon on Thursday, and I am training new editors at another one today, so I'm just a bit distracted. I will address your concerns as soon as I have some spare time. @Megalibrarygirl: Pinging you as a status update, too. Thank you both for your patience! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've replied to all of your concerns. I did not remove the names of individual organizers, or the fact that the PDX event was cancelled, but I am happy to revisit these if you feel strongly about removing specific content. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, I've struck almost everything; just one minor point left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is addressed; promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and assistance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impeachment_March/Archive_1&oldid=833460463"