Talk:John W. Winters

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John W. Winters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I'm done here; not going to bother putting this on hold since you're usually fairly quick. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All my concerns addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All concerns addressed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No issues

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   References look solid

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks are clear

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool flagged one sentence that was too close to the source; I've fixed it.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No extraneous information

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Comments addressed

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

• The article glosses over the move from NYC back to Raleigh; is any information available?
  • The source did not provide any details.
• "was disqualified from service due to scars left by a childhood illness" This is very strange; certainly the first time I've heard of someone being disqualified for evidence of injury. Does the source have any details?
  • Unfortunately not.
• "on the account of his black race" A bit awkward: I would suggest "because he was black", or even "due to racial discrimination"
  • Changed to "because he was black".
• "Raleigh's black leaders" "leaders" is a bit peacockish. I'd suggest "wealthy or influential black men" or some such.
  • Changed to "black affluent men".
• "excluded from white groups" "groups" is weird. "Clubs"?
  • Changed to clubs.
• "he helped devise a strategy" Do we know what this was? If not, I'd suggest simplifying to "participated in efforts to increase..."
  • Source was not specific, changed to "participated in efforts to increase".
• "ran as a Democrat for a Senate seat of the 14th district, representing portions of Wake, Lee and Harnett counties" It's odd to place these details after the sentence about his first run; do we know if that was for the same seat, and with the same affiliation? If so, I'd suggest reordering.
  • @Vanamonde93: This is probably the case, but the source did not specify. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Predecessor

Who was the African American city councilman who preceeded him in 1900? Were any of his other predecessors notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @FloridaArmy: Johnson 2009 doesn't say. It would've been during the tail end of the Fusionism era. But as per this source there were two black men serving on the Raleigh Board of Commissioners (the city council's predecessor I think) in 1868, being appointed by the Reconstruction authorities, and several won election to the body through 1875 (when Reconstruction ended). Some of these men might be notable but I doubt all of them are. One who almost certainly is is James H. Harris (see bio here), who was one of the two black men appointed in 1868 (source, which describes him as the city's top black leader at the time before becoming a state senator). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Nm, he has an article at James Harris (North Carolina politician). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @FloridaArmy: The last two black men on the Raleigh City Council/Board of Commissioners before Winters were James Hamlin (born 1859, best known for Hamlin Drug Store, famous in Raleigh until it closed several years ago) and Charles Williams (born 1860, educator), per this. They left office in May 1901. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)