Talk:Chicago Race Riot of 1919

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Chicago Race Riot of 1919 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 27, 2007.
May 10, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.

Contents

[edit] more at Lynching in the United States

There's quite a bit more on this at Lynching in the United States, including a photo and more detailed discussion of certain aspects of the events.--Bcrowell 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC) anyways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.110.194 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need more context

What is needed is not more about the details of the events, but the context and background. Walter White's article is excellent for that in the sources.--Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

I just finished reviewing the article. Here are my comments:

  • I think the lead needs the most work. Right now, roughly half of the article is devoted to the background of the riot but the lead doesn't mention any of it. Several facts are mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the article.
  • Why is Chicago Race Riot of 1919 in bold on the second picture?
  • I notice Negroes, Blacks and African American being used in the article. Can just one term be used?
  • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs in the article. They need to be removed or merged together.
  • The references are mostly good. I've asked for several citations. Could the ninth reference be formatted?
  • I noticed the Encyclopædia Britannica mentioned the aftereffects of the riot. Could a paragraph be written about the riots significance?
  • State’s Attorney Hoyne - Who is this?
  • Mentioning Daley is very interesting but is the second mention of him needed? It doesn't seem important to understanding the riot.
  • I don't feel like there is a good timeline of the riot. The background, the cause, and the end result is there but there's nothing about how or why the riot ended in the article. Newspapers articles of the times might have some salvageable information regarding this. The New York Times has some coverage [1] but I'm sure Chicago newspapers would be better.
  • The article feels like there could be more sections. Only divided into two sections of prose seems to few.
  • I don't want to have the article to be overwhelmed with pictures but I'm guessing there is an abundance of public domain pictures that could be added.

Everything else looks good. I'm going to ask for a second opinion as I'm rather new at good article reviewing. Right now I'm leaning toward failing the article but I'm sure the editors can address my comments ~ Eóin (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't given the article a careful review, but I think that most of your comments were spot-on. Luckily, Tony is a very responsive editor who addresses issues raised in GA reviews, as we can see from the comments above.
There's still remaining issues to fix. The interchangable use of the terms Negroes, Blacks and African Americans is jarring - I suggest standardizing. The prose could use sharpening; for example, minimize use of the passive voice.
Eóin, you may find it useful to show that you've addressed each of the GA criteria. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll be sure to use a checklist next time. I noticed several mentions of Black changed to African American so I changed the rest of them. I also combined two small paragraphs. With that, I believe the article can pass. Congratulations. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

You found some powerful photos and made excellent additions to the article.--Parkwells (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)