Jump to content

Talk:O Street Market

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleO Street Market has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2016Good article nomineeListed
April 23, 2016Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MikeMc95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the Shooting

[edit]

[As evening crept over the O Street Market on March 31st, 1994, tragedy struck at approximately 7 p.m. As a light rain came down over the city, the sound of gunshots could be heard coming from inside the O Street Market. Soon these gunshots moved outside, and as quickly as it had begun, the shooting was over, leaving only the sound of the terrified screams of bystanders piercing the night. The attack proved to be fatal for 15-year-old Duwan A’Vant, who died from a bullet wound. Eight other people were shot, of which included a toddler, two security guards from the FBI headquarters, and two elderly women. ] Source: Symbol of Violence

[Following a police investigation, two men were tried and convicted of the O Street shootings. 18 year old Kevin A. McCrimmon and 23 year old William H. Napper, Jr. were found guilty in a three week trial in D.C. Superior Court. During this trial, all eight surviving members of the attack testified against the men, stating that four men fired over 30 gunshots into a crowd at the market and then into the bordering Shaw neighborhood. Prosecutors in the case claimed that McCrimmon ordered the attack as retaliation to being shot in the stomach and robbed of over $2,000 cash and a car. The young man killed in the shooting, Duwan A’Vant was arrested in the stolen car a few weeks before the market shooting. Although McCrimmon was not present in the shooting, prosecutors claim that he provided guns to Napper, who in turn formed a team to carry out the attack. As payment, prosecutors say McCrimmon had promised Napper he would avenge the death of his 18-year-old brother, Tremayne Williams, who was killed a month prior. Both McCrimmon and Napper were convicted of conspiracy, second-degree murder, and assault with intent to kill, in addition to other charges. ] Source: ProQuest: 2 Guilty of Setting up Shooting

[Due to the crowded nature of the market, there were many eyewitness accounts of the shooting itself. One account comes from Robert Johnson, an employee at a store inside of the market. Johnson recalls that his boss had just told him to begin sweeping up, so Johnson made his way out towards the market, but before he could make it to the door, it flung inwards towards him, and numbers of screaming, terrified individuals stampeded through. Of the chaos, Johnson said, “I’ve never seen anything like it. It was just another day, nothing unusual. Then there were just bodies falling everywhere.” Other store owners shared similar horrific experiences to that of Johnson’s. "The first time, I thought it was a toy gun, but somebody fell down on the floor, then I thought, `It's a real gun.' Somebody said, `Help me. Help me,” Jae Lee, owner of Lee Jewelry, recounted. According to a fellow merchant, Hae-In Jung, “[the assailants] came in through the back door, and they just came out shooting. Everybody ran into the produce stand to get away. ... An old woman who was buying candy ... about five minutes later, the woman was sitting in a pool of blood." ] Source: ProQuest: Eyewitness Accounts [James Simmons, outside of the market for a smoke break, heard people yelling, “Little Duwan got shot! Duwan is shot!” Simmons remembers that “one guy came out, ran over to the church and collapsed. Everybody was running.” ] Source: Symbol of Violence

Rebuilding Process

[edit]

[For almost two decades after the shooting, the O Street Market fell into disrepair. The market itself became a symbol of urban decay and dysfunction, and a once proud and historic building was heavily vandalized and deserted. In 2001, developers began thinking of how to rebuild the shell of what was once a historical landmark, but knew that they had to wait for the right moment. This moment came in 2013, when the “restored roof of the O Street Market from the top of the new City Market at O, a 645-unit apartment complex with a 182-room hotel and 86,000 square feet of retail,” were unveiled. ] Source: Symbol of Violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeMc95 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the language here in not neutral in tone. Check out WP:TONE for guidance. KatieBU (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]

APK whisper in my ear 22:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:O Street Market/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 08:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This article is generally OK, but I found some issues and have questions:

Issues

In this "21st century" section, it says:

By the late 1990s, the O Street Market had once more become dilapidated. The structure fell into disrepair, trash collected around the structure, many vendors were squatteers without leases, and drug dealers and gang members loitered near the building, driving customers away. The building's owner fell behind on tax payments, and the city threatened to place a lien on the building and foreclose.

Late 1990s is PROBABLY still in the 20th century, so I think that it's kind of weird.

Questions

Do you SURE this article stays on the topic most of the time?

On each street-facing facade of the tower there are two sets of doors with large transom windows. Each set of doors is framed by columns topped with cast iron foliate capitals. The columns support a projection that features decorative brickwork and a segmental arch.

Over-detailed, if shorter or closer to the main article will be better. 333-blue 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I will try to put this article on hold, or else I will ask the 2nd opinion, you can discuss them.

Result

Pass, it looks much better now. 333-blue 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

I am very disappointed that this was passed without all the issues brought up on the reviewer's talk page having been addressed. I posted the following there three days ago:

What I don't see in the review is sufficient attention being paid to problematic prose and grammar. For example, take the first paragraph in the 21st century section. The first two sentences both use the word "rehabilitation", which is unnecessarily repetitive. The third sentence has issues with prose and grammar, including unclear antecedents and referents: They proposed the partial closure of a 40-foot (12 m) wide plaza on 8th Street into a sidewalk, parking lot, and retail space, and for the addition of new windows in the walls. The fourth and seventh sentences start with "But"; starting sentences with conjunctions is something that should be done sparingly. Then the final sentence ends with but there were years of delays and the project stalled., followed immediately by the new paragraph's Redevelopment of the O Street Market then stalled for two years as the developers sought to meet the demands imposed by the Historic Preservation Review Board. First the projects stalls, and then it stalls for two years. Is this a second stall, or the same one? This is the sort of unclear wording that should be fixed during the review.

The third sentence (now the second sentence after revisions) hasn't been changed in the slightest, though the nominator did good work on the rest of the paragraph. The "stall" wording has improved somewhat, but it's still not quite there. And there are other grammatical errors that any review should find and point out. I don't doubt that AgnosticPreachersKid can make the necessary changes if they're noted, but they need to be listed. The second Design paragraph starts with "The tower projects"—what exactly does this mean?—and would seem to contradict the source, which says "In plan, the tower does not project from the building." The sentence in the penultimate 21st century paragraph, In the middle of the store, arches utilizing some of the original brickwork designated the former location of the market's exterior wall., is a bit rough, and should be revised. Minor things include missing hyphens (e.g., mid-2011, 19th-century public markets), but all of these should be found by the reviewer and pointed out so they can be fixed by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that the "design" section has some problems, and some details go off the topic, and hyphens SHOULD NOT use here (e.g., 19th-century, cause it strange). Anyway, it's OK. 333-blue 09:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's most unfortunate, but your entire statement shows why you should not be reviewing these nominations. You knew that a section "has some problems", yet you promoted it despite criteria that clearly say otherwise. You state that hyphens should not be used in "19th-century public markets" because you think it's strange—despite the fact that it is correct English usage and thus required by the criteria. In short, you're using your own opinions and feelings rather than properly applying the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've been rather confused on how to proceed with this nomination. I noticed yesterday that it had been promoted, but if there are still issues (like @BlueMoonset: mentioned above), I'll be more than happy to address them. @333-blue:, I know you're trying to help, but as previously stated, maybe you should hold off on reviewing GA nominations for now. Maybe ask an experienced reviewer if s/he can assist you with a future nomination to gain experience? I'll try to work on the article tomorrow. I've been very busy in real life this week (and this weekend) so please excuse the delay. APK whisper in my ear 18:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:O Street Market/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The original GA nomination was given a highly cursory review by an inexperienced reviewer who did not review to the GA criteria, and missed a number of issues, all of which should have prevented approval until they were fixed.

This will be a complete GA review, with the hope that the article will retain its GA listing because it has, through further edits, met the criteria. I look forward to working with the original nominator, APK, on improving the article and making it worthy of the listing it was prematurely given.

I've run out of time to do a complete assessment now, so I'll be starting by posting comments on two of the History subsections. I expect to add a template showing where the article stands with regard to the six GA criteria, and to continue with the specific comments on the article sections. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specific comments

[edit]
History section
  • 19th century:
  • Many vendors refused to leave the market and were killed during the demolition. With the help of businessmen, some of these vendors started the Northern Liberty Market Company (NLMC): if they were killed, they can't have then started the NLMC. Also, were all of the vendors who refused to leave the market killed, or did some survive?
  • It might be helpful to give a bit more information on the location of the "commercial district on 7th Street", so 5th and K Streets being "too far" has more context.
  • Butcher Michael Hoover owned Square 422 in the early 1800s, selling it to printer Andrew Rothwell about 1845. Rothwell made many improvements to the property, adding gardens which became popularly known as Rothwell's Gardens. Please recast in the past tense; no "selling" or "adding".
 Done except the second point. The nomination form doesn't mention the specific area of 7th Street that would have been considered the heart of the commercial district. It was south of Massachusetts Avenue (approximately between Pennsylvania Avenue and H Street), but that would be considered OR. APK whisper in my ear 01:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20th century:
  • Per WP:LAYIM, the initial image should not be at the left here; please put it to the right.
  • The opening sentence would be clearer if it mentioned the market directly: "The area surrounding the O Street Market, known as Shaw,"
  • The second sentence should be recast to avoid using "population" twice
  • The ending sentences of the first and fourth paragraphs are effectively non-sequiturs: they mention historical designations right after talking about recent problems at the market. Perhaps the designations should be taken out of sequence and made their own paragraph.
  • It isn't clear when the market actually closed after the 1968 riots. Widespread declines are frequently not immediate, so a few more facts would be welcome.
  • You might want to move the 1968 riots and aftermath into the next paragraph after the first sentence, so they are mentioned chronologically.
  • I'm puzzled by the June 1974 contract to renovate the O Street Market, followed in 1977 or 1978 by a rather larger loan to renovate the market building and an extra loan in 1979 to finish the job. Usually renovations last more than three or four years. Can this be touched on in the text?
  • Adkins planned to turn the street into a pedestrian mall, parking lot, and landscaped area. Did he or didn't he? This is history, so what actually happened is what we need to know here.
  • Third paragraph, final sentence: the celebratory music strikes me as unnecessary detail.
  • Fourth paragraph, first sentence: if a "two-decade crime wave" is being mentioned, there needs to be some indication of when during the twenty years this shooting happened.
 In progress Done with points 1-4, 6, and 9-10. I need to ask @Tim1965: if he can look over the sources he used since I don't have access to them. Regarding when the market closed, the source only says "The 1968 riots caused the market to close". I would assume it was immediate since large portions of Shaw's 7th Street corridor were torched or looted. APK whisper in my ear 01:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified when the market closed in 1968, and added two cites to support it. A little copyediting was done to that sentence and the next one or two. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what is puzzling about the 1977-1979 renovation. Can you elaborate? - Tim1965 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for Adkins' intent to close 8th Street and create a pedestrian mall, parking lot, and landscaped area: The final sentence in the third paragraph of the section "21st century" shows that 8th Street Wawas closed. The second sentence in first paragraph of the section "21st century" shows that the street was turned into a plaza. We could replicate both cites at the end of the sentence, and edit the sentence to indicate Adkins did build the three items. Would that meet the criteria? Neither The Washington Post nor The Evening Star indicated whether parking was added. One assumes so: This is the Federal City, after all. This is federal land. Both the National Capital Planning Commission and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts have jurisdiction over the look of the area (buildings, streetscape, lighting, etc.), and no changes (additions or cutbacks) can be made without their approval. I would argue that as there was nothing reported about any changes, that this is negative evidence that the project went through as planned. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sections:
  • An article with just History and Design sections is a bit odd. I think there needs to be a top-level section after the History section reflecting the present status of the building (perhaps incorporating the final two paragraphs under 21st century, though recast a bit given that the O Street Market part of the building would be highlighted more).
 In progress Do you mean a section titled "Current status" or something like that? I'm not sure what to call that section. Sorry. APK whisper in my ear 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is generally good enough to be an good article. 333-blue 11:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no "generally good enough" when reviewing to the GA criteria. Either it meets all of the various criteria or it doesn't, and in this case it doesn't, yet. You had your say in your own review; no need to rehash your opinions here. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look over the article. I just started a new job and things are very hectic for me right now. I'll work on the article in the next day or two when I have time. Thanks for your patience. APK whisper in my ear 18:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 21st century:
  • This section might be divided into more than one: Rehabilitation plans and roof collapse, Expanded redevelopment plans, etc. As noted before, a new top-level section should be split off for the present day.
See previous section. APK whisper in my ear 02:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph: most of the sentences should be recast.
  • First sentence: "local firm" should not need to be mentioned more than once
  • Second sentence: dividing 40-foot-wide does not work well
  • Third sentence: you might want to mention the fact that the plaza was shown on the original design of the city to explain the review board's refusal; if not, then the third and fourth sentences should be combined
  • Final sentence: please delete this
  • Second paragraph: I doubt anyone "continuously" called for the project to resume. How about "regularly"; does that fit the source's information?
  • Third paragraph, penultimate sentence: although the facade of O Street Market was ultimately incorporated into the new Giant Food, the cited source says nothing about this. Please cite a source that does.
  • Fourth paragraph: the first two sentences should be combined to avoid repetition. The third and fourth would do better to delete "angrily" and "quietly"; the first is redundant and the second seems an inappropriate characterization.
  • Fifth paragraph: in the second sentence, "double the size": is that supported, or might it be careless reporting on the part of the source? If the store had been 40,000 sq ft before, then a final size of 72,000 sq ft is not double.
  • Sixth paragraph: "attended by local politicians and business leaders" is unnecessary detail and should be deleted. The later "added additional delays" is repetitive; also, if the HUD did add to the delays, can you quantify? Would the redevelopment have been able to go ahead without that financing? These are post-groundbreaking delays, yes?
  • Seventh paragraph: but is this really true? The O Street Market building now makes up a fraction of the space of the Giant Food that is on the same site, which encompasses the Market's external walls as either its own external walls or some of its internal walls. It isn't a public market any more, but is entirely subsumed by a supermarket. Are these the surviving public market buildings, perhaps? Or are the other two still used as public markets?
 Done APK whisper in my ear 02:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Design:
  • I think this needs a name change, since this is the Original design, with no mention of the current Giant Food design. (There is some information about the current design available.)
  • This writing here it pretty dense. If there's a way to simplify, even if it omits a specific or two, that might be helpful.
  • There's no mention of the market's actual interior size, which I've seen variously mentioned as 12,000 and 12,500 square feet, or indeed anything about the interior or original roof designs. (One source mentions a 3,500 square foot basement. The section here doesn't.)
  • If you do decide (and have the sourcing) to include the surviving elements in the new Giant Food building, possibly as a new paragraph, then you could retain the original section title.
 In progress I changed the title to "Original design" in order to keep focus on the historical portion of the building. (one of the main reasons it was listed on the NRHP) IMHO, I'm not sure details of the new grocery store building are very important. I added a note about the different square footage and I found a source saying the basement was 4,500 sq ft. I don't see one mentioning the 3,500 figure. Do you remember where you saw that? What aspects of the design section needs trimming? APK whisper in my ear 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should finish my comments. Please let me know if you have any questions, and keep me informed if you expect to take longer than a week to get started. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm still working my way through the article, so these may change as I continue the review, and as edits are made by nominator. The individual criteria should be reflected in the ongoing review above.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:
    Still some "clear and concise" issues, and some grammar and punctuation fixes Fixes have been made
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead seems fine, but some words to watch and a layout issue and issues addressed
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    There's at least one place doesn't reflect its sourcing and may need to be deleted fixed
    D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Still need to check these Spot-checks find no such issues; a few wording changes have been made
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    I think a section on the current state of the market is needed, with more focus on the article's market, rather than continuing the History section through present day and into the future On further reflection, I think the article is broad enough, and meets the GA criteria in this regard
    B. Focused (see summary style):
    Some unnecessary details (will be mentioned in detailed review) Unnecessary details have been removed
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    A few words to watch could be influencing some aspects; should easily be fixed fixed
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Final comments

[edit]

I apologize for forgetting about this reassessment, which should have been closed months ago after the initial work was done in response to the original (and extensive) comments. I have done some minor edits today—a bit of formatting, a couple of places where the wording was reminiscent of that in the source or not quite supported by the source, and some slight prose smoothing and a corrected typo. All of the issues previously noted have been addressed, and I'm happy to close this: the article will continue to be listed due to the work done on it during this reassessment. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on O Street Market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:O_Street_Market&oldid=1205146846"