Talk:Shooting of Vivian Strong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 12:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The spelling is correct, grammar is correct, but the prose is quite choppy.
Please take a look again. Urve 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, thank you. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead section could have more on the trial, I feel that certain things should be wikilinked like area names, because especially for people like me not from the U.S. I could really do with some context.
Done. Urve 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very helpful. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, thanks! Bridges2Information (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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:
"She had one sister and six brothers." The reference to The the burning began thesis does not support this, I am assuming this information came from the newspaper article?

Alternative cite if the article does not support it: "Omaha is calm but on alert". Alliance Daily-Times Herald. AP. 30 June 1969. p. 1. 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That will do, I have replaced the references with this new one. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that "Both James W. Smith—Loder's African American partner—and Strong's sister, Carol, asked Loder, "Why did you shoot her?", but he did not reply", but the source cited actually says that "Carol Strong stated that after the shooting Loder pushed Vivian's head with his foot. Angrily she screamed at the officer, "Don't do that, that is my sister!" and Loder allegedly replied "I don't give a damn whose sister it is."", which uses "Contradictory Line Marks Loder Case". Omaha World-Herald. 11 November 1969.

The Howard thesis after the sentence supports this; unsure if it was added after the review started. Urve 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. I may have missed something in the source, but where does it say in the source that Carol Strong said he didn't say anything? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One page 83 of the Howard Thesis, at the bottom of the page...which is a cited as Omaha World Herald, June 26, 1969. Bridges2Information (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that "Unrest followed for three days", but the source is Brown, Dez (2014-09-26). "Three teens shot and killed by authority". The North Star. Retrieved 2019-03-26. It does not say anywhere in this article that unrest lasted for three days, though it does talk about Strong.

Alternative cite: "Peace plea made at funeral; judge threatened". Lincoln Evening Journal & Nebraska State Journal. AP. 1 July 1969. p. 23. Urve 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced citation. Thank you. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It reads that "Omaha's Northeast neighborhood, resulting in 88 injuries and $950,000 in property damage.", but the Noise Omaha does not give this figure, so not sure why this is referenced. The other sources aren't online or are subscription so I can't check.

Alternative cite for the monetary figure (says 1 million+): "Miss Strong is buried amid pleas for peace ... elder Foster blames government 'giants'". The Lincoln Star. UPI. 1 July 1969. p. 3.

I have removed the Noise citation and added your suggestion, changed the amount to "over one million dollars". - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would AGF on the print sources. Urve 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do so, all I was saying is that I was unable to check them. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reference for "On June 28th, 30 Black and white women accused police of brutality in the Near North Side of Omaha, and of having a double standard for the treatment of white and Black people. The police chief denied both charges and talked to the delegation for over an hour."?

Probably the "Police Keep Watch as Disorders Ease" cite on the next sentence. Urve 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure, then please make this more clear. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and reviewed the newspaper clippings I downloaded - and have added the citation. Bridges2Information (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference for the then Mayor saying they would analyze the comments of constituents and protestors, but the reference is "Thousands Mourn Slain Negro Girl". Omaha World Herald. 30 June 2016. p. 2. - is this correct? June 30, 2016?

Is this correct? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is a longer article with several subheadings. This is found under the subheading, "Correct So Far." Specifically, the sentence says, "Earlier the mayor met with a delegation of 15 Negro women. He said the main complaint was that Negroes feel they are discriminated against by police. The mayor said the grievances 'will be studied and analyzed.'" (Page 2). Bridges2Information (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges2Information To clarify, the date of 2016 is correct? It is not more contemporaneous to the events? Urve 11:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urve Thank you! I see it now. It was 1969. Change made. Bridges2Information (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C. It contains no original research:
Cannot see any original research, well done.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No plagiarism, uses quotes where needed and sources material correctly.
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
I see no edit wars or any content disputes
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:
File:VivianStrong.jpg - The image of Strong is the only known image of her, fair use criteria has been applied correctly.

File:SE Corner view of Omaha Star Building.jpg - public domain
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
File:VivianStrong.jpg - image of the Vivian Strong

File:SE Corner view of Omaha Star Building.jpg - appropriate as shows the Omaha Star building that was protected by the Black Panthers during the unrest, the caption is appropriate and informative
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Unfortunately, the prose and sourcing need improvement before this can be promoted to GA status. I have made some changes myself to help, as the subject matter is important. I would, however, like to thank the contributors for the efforts they have put into this article. I have placed this article on hold so you can address them.
@Aussie Article Writer and Bridges2Information:, I left some comments above. I disagree that the sourcing -- at least when substituting in some of the ones I found above -- is not of GA standards; the material is simply offline, but it's verifiable. Note that the chopiness of the prose is not a GA requirement; instead, it is about clarity and concision, which flow is not concerned with. Urve 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bridges2Information noted about the choppiness comment, that's a reasonable point. I do appreciate Urve copyediting though, it actually addresses that issue. I am looking at the referencing. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Urve I have replaced references that just don't say what the material says they say. Thank you for the substitution. Unfortunately, I still have some queries about the sourcing, not many though! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I don't have access to the few queries that remain, otherwise I'd try to repair them. Best of luck on the rest of this GAN, it's an important one. Urve 01:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thank you for the references! I’m confident with a few more improvements this one can be promoted. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! I think this is an important article and I really appreciate your help. (I was raised in Omaha in the 80s and 90s and had never heard about this shooting, which is why I started and wrote the article). Bridges2Information (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to have reviewed this article, I agree it is an important article. Well done on getting this to GA status! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]