Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birmingham campaign

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:00, 11 February 2008.

---

Birmingham campaign

I'm nominating this article on the 1963 Civil Rights demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama for featured article because I have worked on the article since October, scouring resources, asking for peer review (you can find it here) with minimal feedback. I hope to have done this subject justice in writing this article. I will remain watchful of the nomination and do what needs to be done to see it to featured article status. Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose by Dweller

Not yet FA quality. Here's a selection of problems found from a quick tour of the article. This is not comprehensive.

• I found the following rather incongruous: "Racial violence was notorious in the city. Singer Nat King Cole was assaulted on stage in 1957 by three white men."... followed by description of 50 racial bombings. The article seems to be proving the racial violence by the minor attack on NKC, with the 50 bombings as an afterthought! Drop the NKC reference; it's trivial.

I removed the statement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Lead includes the term "African American"... it's the only such usage in the whole article. I'm fairly ignorant on these sensitive issues... is this an anachronism? Further, it's odd to find jargon used in the Lead if it won't be used in the article.

I changed this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be more comfortable if the Lead were at least one paragraph longer... say the opening parag summarising the issue, the next giving some narrative and the third looking at the impact. Two parags just seems insubstantial and the current opening parag seems crammed to me.

I added some information to the lead.--Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Section heading "Battle of Birmingham" strikes me as POV as there's no reference in the article to such a usage in RS

Was titled this in one of my references, but I changed it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abraham Woods claim is apparently unsourced.

Fixed.--Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Wyatt Tee Walker wrote in retrospect of the impact that the Birmingham campaign is "legend"" is poor English

Fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Two photo captions say they're "iconic images". That's repetitious and, unsupported, POV. I also believe that if you're going to use fair use images, you need to refer to them extensively in the text. That'd help you overcome another current shortcoming - captions should be brief.

I had to get assistance with two of the photos. It is my understanding that the photos in question can only be used in the article if they are iconic, and it has to be made clear in the article that the photos impacted society or photography in some way. This is why the Images of the day section was included. The editor in question who helped me with this, Carcharoth, and I have an extensive discussion about this on the talk page.

We're in agreement... what I'm saying is that detailed discussion of the pics needs to go into the text, not the captions. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the captions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy with the captions. Captions should tersely explain what the image is, not go into detail. They're all trying to tell the story, when they should merely be identifiers that refer helpfully to the text. "Photograph showing the wreckage of a bomb explosion near the Gaston Motel where Martin Luther King, Jr., and leaders in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were staying during the Birmingham campaign of the Civil Rights movement." for example could simply read "Wreckage following the Gaston Motel bombing". Placed alongside the appropriate text, that's it. And if the text isn't there, why is the image?

It's such a good story to tell. I shortened the captions again. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment on the captions and the pictures, it is important not to shorten the captions too much (that can lead to readers being uncertain what the connection is with the article), and not to leave important information on the image page - we mustn't rely on the reader clicking through to get important historical information like dates - all the important information should be in the caption or the article. Wikipedia:Captions says "Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture." For a historical article like this, the dates of the pictures is important. Many times I've seen pictures that looked fine, but when you check the image page, the date was wrong for what the image was being used to illustrate! And if I may pick up on two comments by Dweller, "captions should be brief" and "should tersely explain what the image is" - this doesn't tell the full story. Captions should succintly explain what the image is, but for information-dense images, sometimes long captions are needed. The basic, "who, what, where, when, why?" questions should be considered and answered. For fair-use images, the situation is more complicated. Sometimes repetition (sometimes supplying the same information using different words) between the caption, the surrounding text, and the fair-use rationale is needed to drive home the point of why the picture is being used (especially details of where and when it was published, and the impact of the picture) - otherwise you have people saying "not enough commentary". Regarding "iconic", that sort of thing should be sourced, but if it is, then it is not POV to say that. As Moni points out, Birmingham campaign#Images of the day more than adequately covers the story the two fair-use pictures tell. I would be happy to discuss the individual captions in greater details at Talk:Birmingham campaign if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

--Dweller (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I found some punctuation errors (1 example:"demonstrations' organizers"). I suggest a copyedit.

If there were multiple demonstrations, the possessive of those would be demonstrations', would it not? --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That'd be correct. That's me not reading carefully enough. I did notice some others that less likely to be my mistake! If I find a few mins, I might fix em myself. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... hope that helps improve the article. --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not apologize. I appreciate the feedback and will do what it takes to see this to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• "employing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s policies of nonviolent action to disrupt the city's functioning by filling the jails to capacity, and deliberately flouting laws they considered unfair." Poor English and the sense is unclear. My guess is that what is intended is "employing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s policies of nonviolent action to disrupt the city's functioning by deliberately flouting laws considered unfair in order to fill the city's jails to capacity." Is that correct? --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I altered the lead, particularly the sentence you highlighted. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've not revisited the article recently. Thanks for the reminder. I still firmly believe the article needs a thorough copyedit, something reinforced by the kind of pernickety pedantic comments I'm about to make and the changes I've made and will make in the article itself. So, I continue to oppose the promotion of the article on the basis of 1a. Which is a shame, as it's the easiest thing to have fixed (get it copyedited) and the most fiddly (and all-round irritating to all) to oppose on at FAC.

So, new issues below. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead:

• Quote from MLK in Lead - is it necessary here?

The idea that people would voluntarily get arrested in large numbers defies common sense. The purpose of direct action, I thought, had to be explained well and early. That quote did it better than I could. I can move it to another section, but I have to remember that people are reading this who have no concept of activism or direct actions. It's a vital explanation to make. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Project 'C'" formatting looks odd

Would it look even more odd in italics? Grammar and punctuation-wise, it is accurate. Let me know if you have a suggestion.--Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• photo caption "causing" doesn't sound right - try "prompting"? "eliciting"?

Seems to have been done. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• "ran low on volunteers to risk arrest" perhaps "prepared to risk" is better

Done. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Grammar of that entire sentence needs review

I split it into two sentences.--Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Second para seems to focus too much on the thinking behind and not enough on what actually happened for a summary (eg Lead doesn't actually say there was brutality, just that it was hoped it would be prompted)

I added more detail. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

More will follow. Or perhaps you might prefer to put this on hold pending a copyedit and everyone can (hopefully) pile-on support? --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in the realm of the league of copy editors right now. I await their suggestions or tinkering as well. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. OK, please drop me a line when it's been done and I'll be happy to come back here. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Dweller. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback from Kiyarr

• Query: could the sentence "Black churches were often targeted[,] for hosting mass meetings[,] where civil rights were often discussed." be improved by replacing with "Black churches often hosted discussions on civil rights"? - does the sentence refer to "targeted (for racial bombings)"? is there a source for this?--Kiyarrllston 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the churches were targeted for bombings when they hosted mass meetings. There are sources. Is your suggestion for me to revise that statement and cite it? --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do suggest that. I had misunderstood the meaning of the sentence. I perceived some ambiguity as to whether the targeting refers to 'for racial bombings' or 'for meetings'

Citing a source would definitely improve it.

Thanks for answering.

--Kiyarrllston 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote the sentence and provided a source. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I note around 6 occasions where parenthesis are used unnecessarily and flow could be improved by removing them.--Kiyarrllston 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know if I reverted 6 occasions of parenthases, but I changed a few. There are only three left, the abbreviations for ACMHR and NAACP, and "see top of page" in the "Images of the day" section. --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that I will do what is necessary to see the article to its best quality. I have addressed the issues here and invite the editors who commented on the article to revisit it, and encourage anyone else to do so as well. I very much appreciate your time. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support

I believe - the article is not badly written - not nearly brilliantly written either however, I believe FA status requires more flow and expedience than is currently in the article- a more professional level of writing.

If this is something you are able to put into words, such as improve the flow between the sections, or make connections between certain sections, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[done]The organization is mostly good - suggested improvements: heading -"D" Day- could be replaced with a more informative one, "References" heading could be replaced by "Citations" or "Notes" or "Footnotes" - as to distinguish from Bibliography

Changed.--Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[???]'m not sure the article is NPOV. Martin Luther King is often treated as a hero in popular culture - which is definitely un-encyclopedic - .

This I have to address. I agree King is treated as a hero in general, but I hope to have included a fair account of the criticism the campaign received at the time, other than the obvious criticism by Connor and the conservative element in Birmingham. Shuttlesworth was considered by many to be a panderer to publicity and King's advisers bickered with each other, but these are parts of the story that I don't really consider appropriate for an encyclopedic article - more for what one learns when one goes out and reads all the books about it. But criticism of King was kept fairly quiet. The editor of the Birmingham World, instead of criticizing King, simply refused to print any news about the demonstrations outside of editorials, which are mentioned in the article. There were times that King's advisers were frustrated with him for hesitating in making decisions, and I included that as well. If there are specific parts you think should be edited that seem to put too much emphasis on King's actions or reputation, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it very unusual that you say he is treated as a hero in general - I guess it is not so easy to treat him otherwise.--Kiyarrllston 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that criticism of King is not really forthcoming from people who are not avowed racists. I was referring to his historical legacy as a whole, not in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[done]I am not sure the lead properly "summarizes" the article - there seems to be more than one movement or project -Project "C"- and -"D" Day or "Children's Crusade"- aren't really noted at all within the lead yet the latter, the use of children, seems was the most effective part of it.

I rewrote the lead once more. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[not done]I think this article should note the larger picture - the Civil Rights Movement - which it doesn't seem to except when talking about the president's actions.

The Albany campaign is mentioned as a factor helping leaders to decide what NOT to do. King made a deliberate decision to stay in Birmingham during the campaign, leaving only twice for weekends, which helped to focus as much attention on Birmingham as possible. In the impact section, the Birmingham campaign is connected to the Selma marches. Are there specific connections you were hoping to see? --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How does the birmingham fit into the larger picture? How does this even affect people today? - Was this at the beginning of Martin Luther King's Career? (had he given the "I have a dream" speech yet?) - I see that it is said to be "Civil Rights Movement's most important chapter" - what was the following chapter? what was the preceeding chapter? --Kiyarrllston 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

King gave the I Have a Dream speech in the summer of 1963, after the Birmingham campaign, which is mentioned in the "After the campaign" section. In the "Background" section there is a paragraph about the previous chapter - the Albany movement, which was not successful, and how the campaign's organizers did their best not to make the same mistakes in Birmingham as they did in Albany. Other connections to Civil Rights Movement chapters are made: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Selma, Alabama marches, Medgar Evers' inspiration from the Birmingham campaign to do the same in Jackson, Mississippi, and Roy Wilkins' views that other chapters had a bigger influence on civil rights. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[done]Thank you for putting a friendly notice in my talk page. I strongly suggest WP:CANVASSing in the form of friendly notices to parties interested both in improving the article and those interested in reviewing it - have you contacted past contributors to this article or frequent contributors to the FAC or PR pages? members of the Copy-editing league?

I will look into this. I put notes on the Civil Rights article talk page and the WP:Discrimination talk page. I'll search for others. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this comment. I am very amenable to elaborate and expound on anything I wrote in this comment, please feel free to ask.

--Kiyarrllston 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Personally I dislike articles where the organization consists only of a chronology treatment - a possibility that goes away from this is the creation of a section on "Actors"/"Political Actors" - where you could note the sides to this "conflict" or campaign. - What do you think of this?

I have to consider this more. I'm not so in love with the idea because it would make the article quite unstable during FAC. Plus, there is an element, specifically in this article, of one day's actions compounding upon the next until a crisis situation was reached. Without chronology, I'm not sure this tension and near-chaos can be related adequately.

Once more, I appreciate your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I helped out with some of the images but have only tweaked and copyedited the text, which was largely written by Moni. I've watched the article grow and improve since I helped with the images. I've read the article several times, and each time I've found it well-written and well-referenced (with some of the suggestions here improving it still further). I also support the chronological narrative approach. The article might need a little polish here and there, but I don't see any substantive objections to it being featured, particularly as Moni is working to address the concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Weak Oppose until copyedited. I began browsing earlier today before I got sidetracked. Main issue (as always) is prose. Main issue (as always) is prose. great topic to choose for FAC and I'll do what I can to get it through. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:You need to avoid repetition - in 2nd para of A city of segregation, bomb or some variation thereof is used 3 times very quickly (excluding 'Bombingham')

Birmingham's black population began to organize to affect change. - you could lose this sentence without losing meaning. It doesnt add anything really.

I will consider this. If it is deleted by the league of copy editors, I will leave it out. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shuttlesworth's home was repeatedly bombed, - do we know how many times over what period? Would be great to put in to get a real feeling for this. MOS also likes specifics. vague otherwise

I'll check on this information and add it to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Be good to have how long MLKs campaign in Albany Georgia slotted in - to give a comparison. You can slot in length in this sentence here - although the (x-length) campaign had been described as a - and ref it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Will add this to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The City of Birmingham responded not only with arresting picketers and people at sit-ins. - using "not only" requires a second clause with "but also" or something similar. it is missing here and the sentence sounds weird as is. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to change much until the league of copy editors looks at it. I'm going to wait on this for now.--Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They had their supporters who watched and lent their encouragement on the sidelines, but many were too alienated to get involved. - I don;t understand the 2nd bit. why were they alienated. Do you mean lost interest or just had to look after families or....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They didn't want to get arrested. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Casliber, I appreciate your comments and your work on the article. I hope not to upset you, but I reverted your grammar and punctuation changes. Some of your changes made the content inaccurate. For example, you changed "inter-racial" to "interracial" in a quote by Albert Boutwell, and it needs to stay exactly as it was written. Also, I prefer that people's last names are used instead of titles - it makes for a more even and NPOV article. I have the article with the league of copy editors, and I'm awaiting their potential edits to what exists now. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, yes. I must admit I don't appreciate 2 hours of my time blanket-changed. Some of the changes are pretty obvious redundancies and repetitions which you can see for yourself. It really needs addressing. I've clarified as Oppose above but will happily support if the prose is fixed. I'll leave it now then and come back after copyediting. I am curious as to what is the difference between interracial and inter-racialcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Live and learn. Long ago I learned not to edit after drinking a lot. Yesterday I learned not to edit after not sleeping for two days...So I went through and incorporated some of your suggestions and changed the 2nd paragraph under "A city of segregation". I know you put a lot of work into the edit and I apologize for dismissing it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nearly there Support - I was just looking at it again - the other issue is to me it seems a little 'bare' in places somehow. Given it was a campaign to effect change, I was hoping After the campaign would expand a bit on how things changed in the city afterwards - how quickly segregation actually took to occur and figures in terms of wages, employment etc. How quickly african-american assumed jobs previously denied them (eg police etc.), and how harmonious or otherwsie it was (i.e. locally as well as its role in initiating change across the country). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I expanded this section. I could not find information about wages and employment other than that it was months before clerks were hired, and 1967 before the first black police officer was hired, but I did address different aspects of success of the campaign. --Moni3 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Good, this was exactly the sort of info I meant. I am fascinated at how the demographic change would occur once the laws were changed - the examples you give about clerks and police officer above are great. Ok, on day 'x' the parks were desegregated - did many african american people enter straightaway? Did folks stay away for a while? Were there any notable retaliations? How quickly did schools desegregate? etc. Any more would be great but we're just over into FA territory now for mine. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are random samples of why the whole text needs a couple of hours' attention by a good copy-editor. Please don't just address these issues:

• Don't we know what "jails" are? Why is it linked? Other trivial links still should go throughout—otherwise they dilute the high-value ones and annoy readers. Please audit.
  • I removed the link around "jail" and a few other common words throughout the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "... negotiation."—Period last if the quotation starts within a WP sentence. See MOS.
  • The article had a thorough copy edit by the LOCE, but I changed this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• First caption: rather long. MOS says keep them short. Can some be just in the info page, and/or the main text?
  • There is a discussion above between Dweller and Carcharoth about the appropriate length of captions under iconic images, specifically when the images are a part of the subject of the article. I admit I'm relatively inexperienced in FA, especially in the realm of images, but I tend to agree with Carcharoth about the captions needing good descriptions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Project 'C' ", —ungainly quotes: please use italics for C instead.
  • Changed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Not all of the demonstrators were nonviolent"—double negative could be avoided with "peaceable", perhaps.
  • Changed to "peaceful".--Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Stronger flow without "also" in the third para.
  • Removed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "By the end of the campaign, though, King's reputation was enhanced,..."—"though" has an attitudinal ring to it; more formal is "However, by the end ...".
  • Changed much of this paragraph for accuracy and your suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "a model for later campaigns in other cities, succeeded in effectively shutting down the city,..."—Can you avoid the rep of "city/ies"? Remove "later", or maybe "for other campaigns in the ?south"?
  • Adjusted. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• towardS can be an adjective, not "toward".
  • Fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Pay scale differences between white and black workers at the local steel mills were common, and the average income for blacks in the city was less than half that of whites." Hmmm ... the second statement is much more dramatic and makes the pay "differences" seem vague, even coy. And were the black pay scales more or less than the white? Say "Significantly lower pay scales for black workers ... were common ...". I hope it's a reputable source for the "half"—these stats are notoriously reliant on the way things are counted. (I'm not, BTW, disputing the significance of the disparity.)
  • Sentence altered. The source's author, David Garrow, has written several books about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Jobs that were possible for blacks consisted of manual labor"—ungainly and the wrong meaning. "Blacks were restricted to jobs such as ...?? Tony (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to "Jobs that were available..." --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your comments, Tony1. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to warrant your support. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Update by Moni3: I'm covering my bases here, so this is no reflection on the promptness of the following editors who have contributed to this FAC.

• I invited Dweller to return and comment here
• I invited Dwarf_Kirlston to return and comment here
• I invited Tony1 to return and comment here --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Moni3; it helps when nominators keep the FAC apprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you, Moni3, for leaving a comment on my user talk page.--Kiyarrllston 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you for helping to make it an excellent article, as it deserves to be. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Improved; I still see a MOS breaches in the position of the final dot: "... firing line." and others; please check through for this (the dot) where quotes start within WP sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) January 29, 2008
  • Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation marks seems to suggest that it is correct to have the period inside the quotation marks: "Correct: Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The period is part of the quoted text.) " In this case, the quote is a full sentence: "Real men don't put their children on the firing line." Thus the period goes inside the quote marks, surely? Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I must have missed that message. Really sorry. I'll take a look through the article once more and get back here as soon as I can. <most embarrassed - sorry again> --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Post copy-edit reiterate Oppose by User:Dweller

• Continued oppose I'm afraid I'm still finding a lot of issues, although thankfully they're now more factual/narrative than grammatical etc. As there are so many, I'll stick with oppose. I began commenting in depth, but the list is extremely lengthy, and is based on just a chunk of the article. This sort of stuff should be picked up at PR, in my opinion. FWIW, here's the detailed comments, but, sadly, it'll take a lot more than just fixing these to turn me round. Please go back to PR (I assume the article went there before FAC):
• I'm very confused about the attorneys when King was in jail. Did he or didn't he get represented? Article implies he didnt because they wouldnt be left alone. Further, article first mentions block on NAACP attorneys, but then mentions legal pad given to him by SCLC attorneys. So did the second lot manage to see him when the first were blocked, or are they one and the same (in which case, why the different name?) or did he get visited by both, but article implies the first couldn't and doesn't explicitly say the second did! Phew!
• "jail administrators wished King to be out of jail as soon as bail could be raised and paid," I presume the source verifies this, but why would this be so?
• Supporters pressured" In English English, this would be pressurised, or pressed. Is this OK in American?
• Did Mrs King phone the Kennedys after she was advised to?
• "His arrest attracted national attention, including that of corporate officers of retail chains with stores in downtown Birmingham. After King's arrest, the chains' profits began to erode, and national business owners pressed the Kennedy administration to intervene." Suggest reword..., esp. as last subject ("His" would refer) is a baby, not MLK. "King's arrest had attracted national attention, including that of [some term less fussy than "corporate officers"] of retail chains with stores in downtown Birmingham. The chains' national sales figures were down [too preemptive to talk about profits, and clarify it's nationally, not in Birmingham] following King's arrest, and the owners pressed the Kennedy administration to intervene."
• Impression given that Jaqueline K calls because of the business leaders, but it's not clear.
• "He was released on 20 April, but the campaign faltered because it was running out of demonstrators willing to risk arrest. In addition, although Connor had used police dogs to assist in the arrest of demonstrators, this did not attract the media attention that organizers had hoped for." - multiple problems. First, the failure of the campaign is dismissed in a couple of brief sentences tacked onto MLK's imprisonment. Secondly, the first reason stated is apparently unsourced. Thirdly, in what way can the campaign be said to have "failed" - against what criteria is it considered to have failed? All this is too important to hide and deal with at speed in an otherwise apparently irrelevant paragraph section.
• "D" Day. Consistent with "Project C" etc, the name should be entirely within quotes. You'll need to nest them if the original name included quote marks
• Presumably, the "Children's Crusade" was a reference to the Children's Crusade? This is worth noting.
• There must be a relevant specific wikilink for Prom queen
• Why would prom queens and athletes be particularly open to recruitment, as opposed to other kids? Should it mean that they were particularly sought out, rather than the implication that they were prone to recruitment?
• "skipped school" is a little informal
• "When no squad cars were left to block the city streets" - they were blocking the streets with cars? Why? Against pedestrian demonstrators... how?

More to follow --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Dweller: I'm going to address your specific points, because I can't address the more nebulous comments ("it'll take a lot more than just fixing these to turn me round," for example). --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to make these changes - I had to check out some of my references from the library again in order to address your points. Letter from Birmingham Jail (with or without the "a") has its own article. I answered your questions by shifting some sentences, adding a couple of sentences, but hesitate to add more to this section so as not to draw attention away from the campaign as a whole. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No worries about taking time to respond... there's no rush. Not sure what you meant about Letter from Birmingham Jail, but I assume it's fine. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to be honest and say I don't know what you don't understand about why Birmingham jail administrators wanted King out quickly. Yes, they despised him, but King brought intense national attention to Birmingham. They didn't want King in jail - they wanted him to shut up and be gone. Also, I'm not sure what is confusing about recruiting popular, attractive, and athletic students to lead others to march. Successful students get along with adults better than troublemakers, and organizers wanted picture-perfect button down all-American kids to participate, not hoodlums. I suppose one could read it as the kids were easy to manipulate, because they were, in a manner, used for a cause, but that is not a point I feel that is the responsibility of the article to make. Another issue I'm not sure confuses you: squad cars and barricades were brought in to block the streets because the police were expecting small numbers - maybe 20 students. There are no sources I read that indicate how many students the police were expecting, but a few addressed the surprise of the police. The article states that James Bevel told Bull Connor that they were going to march, but didn't say how many were going to be there. Connor assumed squad cars would be able to take a small number of students to jail, not 600. Plus, these were kids, pliable second-class citizens who were supposed to be terrified of police. I'm sure it was inconceivable to police at the time to watch children coming out of church in their starched Sunday clothes to run pell mell to avoid arrest. They very calmly or enthusiastically walked directly to the police and expected to be arrested. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the mayor etc would have wanted King out of town, but the "jail administrators"? I thought you were implying that he caused problems to the jail specifically (but the article doesn't say that).--Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the idea of targetting athletes etc. The point I was making was that the article says "He was most successful in recruiting" some types of children, meaning he was less successful recruiting others. There's no intuitive logical reason why this should be so, so either information is missing or the wording is misleading. Try dropping "most"? --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't (don't) see a mention of barricades, just police cars. It seemed to me that cars were a particularly ineffectual way of trying to block pedestrians and I was puzzled as to why the police would choose to do that. If you're saying there were cars and barricades too then something's missing --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the campaign faltering after King's arrest, again...confusion to your confusion. The article doesn't state that the campaign had failed, but that it was faltering, slowing. It was losing momentum, media attention, and not getting Birmingham residents to volunteer in mass numbers to be arrested. Their goals were to shut down the functioning of the city in order to be able to negotiate for desegregation. The lead mentions the purpose of nonviolent direct action. --Moni3 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points, well taken. I do think that this pair of sentences deserves more attention than being tacked at the end of the parags about MLK's imprisonment. Logically, I'd suggest they could be relocated as an introductory paragraph at the top of the next section. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pressured" in American parlance is more appropriate than "pressurized", which would more accurately refer to treatment of wood or some such other substance. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then of course you have to stick with it! I wasn't sure. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-linked Soviet Union. I don't believe it is a common term any longer, especially for young people. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this refers to, but no problem. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I kept the link to "prom queen", keeping it because it's an American reference. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the article I thought it was just pointing to Prom (on the word "prom" alone), but this could be my mistake. Either way, it's fine now. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Newsweek source doesn't connect the marches to the medieval Children's Crusade. I'm not sure I can do that if the source itself doesn't. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I take your point. How about a footnote along the lines of "The term Children's Crusade has a notable history, originating from the 1212 Children's Crusade." By focussing on the origins of the term, we should be able to avoid OR. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Skipping school" is not so informal in the US, but I changed it to "truant".--Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I have to disagree that the article needs to be returned to PR. It has had a thorough copy edit by LOCE, I have addressed the points I assume are the most glaring to you and to other editors as well as I could. The article has support from some qualified editors in the FA process, ones I respect, as I noticed, so do you. At the top of this FAC request is the link to the disappointing response the article got from PR when I placed it there. I don't have faith that it will get any more attention if I denominate it. It's difficult to discern from me, I imagine, if I'm responding your suggestions because of this lengthy FAC, but I hope to relay the utmost respect, and I'm doing my best to weigh your concerns with the integrity of the article in its entirety. That said, I continue to appreciate your input. I feel that this article is quite excellent due to the suggestions of my fellow editors. The article is very well-written, and a tribute to an event that I have always found fascinating. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this on our talk pages. I understand your stance and will try to make good on the promises I made, although it may take until early next week as I rarely edit at weekends. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I took out "most", moved the sentences about the faltering campaign to the next section, replaced the word "barricades" because it was in there at some point and can't remember taking it out - was probably removed to consolidate terms during one of its many copy edits, and expanded the footnote for "Children's Crusade". --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I notified Dweller of my comments here. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I've copyedited this today. It's really quite good, and I changed little. Some remaining issues:

• "High school, college, and some elementary students" - 'some' on the last type here rather implies 'all' for the others.
• "During the protest, the Birmingham Police Department " - till now, there's no reference to a specific protest, only 'protests'; please clarify the one referred to here.
• "Martin Luther King, Jr.," should either be used consistently throughout, or the 'Jr.' should be dropped consistently after the first full use. As is, the article switches indiscriminately between the two forms.
• "their conversation was brief and he was guarded, as he correctly assumed that his phones were tapped." - it's unclear which definition of 'was guarded' is meant here; suggest "their conversation was brief and guarded" as less ambiguous.
• "The campaign, however, was faltering because it was running out of demonstrators willing to risk arrest." - 'however' is quite awkward after a double section break.
• Quotes are used for "Project C" and should therefore be used for "D Day".
• "more than a thousand students were truant from school and showed up" - this is an odd mix of active and passive verbs.
• "In June 1963, the Jim Crow signs that segregated public places in Birmingham were taken down." - the signs didn't segregate the places.
• "Birmingham's public schools were integrated in September 1963, after Governor Wallace sent National Guard troops to keep black students out and President Kennedy reversed Wallace and ordered the troops to stand down." - didn't he reverse Wallace by ordering the troops to stand down?
• "Because leadership was given to the black middle class in Birmingham and the SCLC and left out the black underclass, according to Eskew, riots occurred after the bombing of the Gaston Motel, and they foreshadowed rioting in larger cities later in the 1960s." - it's indeterminate what 'according to Eskew' modifies here, and cause and effect are garbled; I think this sentence needs a full rewrite to say what is intended.
• Reference formatting is inconsistent. I've gone through the page ranges and replaced dashes with endashes, but there are quite a few remaining issues:

• A quick sampling of the punctuation used after a publication name results in this list: [17] comma, [50] semicolon, [54] full stop, [56] colon, [57] none.
• Access dates are given for only a few of the publications that are available online.
• Article titles are inconsistently formatted—some titles have no quote marks (compare [18] and [33]).

Most of the ref formatting issues can be fixed with citation templates. I can help, but after having racked up 26 edits just now (primarily from endash fixes), I feel inclined to wait for an invitation before I muck with it any further. Maralia (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to copy edit the article. I made most of the changes, except for: all the online sources have access dates. Articles from The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Newsweek are from microfilm. I don't think I need access dates for those. As for the phrase "were truant and showed up" was changed from "skipped school and showed up" at the behest of Dweller. I don't know what else to change it to, but I liked "skipped". I'll clean up my references (I love the MOS so much!!! Oh my God!). I do appreciate your help. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that some of those problems were caused by me asking for changes, so apologies Moni3 :-) Why not go back to "skipped", as you say it's not so informal in the USA? --Dweller (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; "skipped school" would solve things here. As to the other issues: understood about articles accessed via microfilm. Other changes adequately address my above concerns, with the exception of the Eskew sentence. Syntactically, it now reads, "Because x, according to Eskew y foreshadowed z". I can't quite make sense of that. Maralia (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Eskew fixed. Only remaining issue in my opinion is citation formatting. My offer still stands! Maralia (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I confess. I don't mind bending over the microfilm machine ruining my eyes, or throwing out my back walking around with a load of books to cite all the stuff in the articles I work on, but the punctuation in the citations just drives me right out of my tree. I appreciate your assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand; it's drudge work, for sure. It's done now. The citation formatting should be beyond reproach; but please do look over the content of the Citations section, as a few are slightly expanded—I looked up a book here, a website there, etc. in order to more thoroughly fill out the templates. Thank goodness there were no edit conflicts; I would have leaped out the window! Maralia (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Thank you so much!--Moni3 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • "black Americans in the United States" seems unnecessary. "black Americans" or "blacks in the United States" will do.

Done. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "During the summer of 1962, Martin Luther King had led a movement in Albany, Georgia, to try to change that city's policies of segregation, but the campaign was described as a "morass" instead of a success" Described so by whom?

By the text of Voices of Freedom. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • "The Soviet Union began a "massive propaganda exploitation" of the events in Birmingham, using it for up to 25 percent of its news broadcast, and much of it was sent to Africa, where Soviet and U.S. interests clashed." "exploitation" is not a neutral term.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is true, but they are the words of John Cotman describing information compiled by the CIA. The phrase is in quotations. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with those quotations is that they are not attributed. The first one could be fixed by mentioning who said that. I think the second one needs to use neutral wording. Characterizing an event in the Cold War only from an American point of view isn't right IMHO. --Carabinieri (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I attributed the first quote and removed the second. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment, some comments, sorry for the delay in their provision...

  Sorry, bit late but hopefully these may be of use...

  • Consistent use of King Jr. is needed.
  • City of segregation has two paragraphs which are chronologically out of order, this is a little confusing for me.
  • Is wikilinking to morass useful? This may have been the quote but the wikilnk redirects to marsh. Not particularly informative in this context!
  • "They claimed on a technicality that their terms would not expire until 1965 instead of in the spring of 1963. For a brief time, Birmingham had two city governments attempting to conduct business.[23]" -I'd merge these sentences as the latter is a direct consequence of the former...
  • "Selective Buying Campaign" section. Was this a formal title? If not then the title should be "Selective buying campaign" per WP:HEAD, if so then my apologies.
  • "The boycotts were declared 80 to 95 percent effective." - I'm not sure I understand what this means. Effective at what, exactly?
  • "To benefit the movement, Wyatt Tee Walker, one of the SCLC founders, used Bull Connor's tendency to act with violence." not sure about this. I'd say it something along the lines of "Wyatt Tee Walker... would use Connor's tendency to act with violence to support the movement's non-violence" (or similar).
  • " On April 10, Connor" - by now it's easy to lose context so I'd suggest a full wikilinked date and Bull Connor's full name here.
  • "The campaign was faltering..." - not the best way to start a new section if the previous section didn't end with something similar. My reading of the end of the previous section was that things weren't going that badly for the campaign if "national business owners pressed the Kennedy administration to intervene."
  • WENN could be linked.
  • "The "D" Day campaign received front page coverage in The Washington Post and The New York Times." should be cited.
  • Standoff section reads stilted - too many short sentences which don't naturally flow and prevent decent prose.
  • "didn't " - "did not" for FA!
  • Expand AFL-CIO on its first use.
  • " In June 1963, the Jim Crow signs indicating segregated public places in Birmingham were taken down." needs citation.
  • Not essential but I'd move [106] to the end of the sentence. I know it relates directly to the 1963 but no harm in moving it for aesthetics to the end of the sentence.
  • "Someone threw a tear gas ..." - reads strangely - try "A tear gas canister was thrown..."
• Feel free to get in touch if any of these need to be clarified.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rambling Man, and thank you for reading and commenting on the article. My responses:

• • • A previous editor just told me to use King's name consistently either with the Jr. throughout, or use the Jr. once at the beginning and then not at all. Since some of the sources name King without the Jr., I chose to go with the second option.
    • In the City of Segregation section, I can see your point that they seem out of order, but to set the context of why the campaign was done, it is necessary to describe the state of inequality in the city. Years are used, again for context, but not necessarily for chronology. In the first paragraph, 1960 is mentioned because it was the last year that voter registrations were counted, and the 1958 Time article spoke directly to Birmingham's economic situation. I feel as if the order of what is described is appropriate for setting the inspiration for the campaign.
    • Re: the wikilinking of "morass" - I grew up here in Florida in a swamp and never have never seen the term "morass" before. If it's a dealbreaker I can de-link it, but it's not a common term to use.
    • Selective Buying Campaign is a proper term used for the campaign and should be capitalized.
      • Okay, so perhaps it should be capitalised in the lead as well then for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I linked Bull Connor's name per your request.
    • I altered the sentence with Wyatt Tee Walker's theory per your request.
    • I included a brief lead-in to the Recruiting students section, per your request, but a previous editor here requested I move the information about the campaign faltering to the section below.
    • WENN, although having the same call letters, does not correspond to the black radio station in 1963 according to its article.
      • Well then that could be confusing in the future - perhaps create a stubbed article for the WENN you're referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Didn't" was changed. What can I say? Two LOCE editors gave it a run-through.
    • For "Someone threw a tear gas" - I'm senstive to the criticism of passive voice. If I changed it to "A tear gas canister was thrown" I anticipate getting that criticism.
      • Yeah, I appreciate that, it's not essential.
    • Although the Washington Post and New York Times articles were cited throughout the D Day section, I cited them again, per your request.
    • I'm not sure what's confusing about the 80 to 95% effective sentence. The previous sentence stated that business had fallen by 40% - that's a pretty significant number. What would you like to see?
      • I can understand the 40% fall in business but I don't know what 80 to 95% effective means. Effective at what exactly? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • AFL-CIO is expanded.
    • "For a brief time...two city governments" was joined to the previous sentence.

Thank you again. --Moni3 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For morass, perhaps wikt:morass (piped properly, of course) would be more appropriate. Maralia (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're always welcome. I'm glad if I've been of help. I'll re-read the article and re-appraise as soon as I can find time. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Status update: I feel that I have addressed The Rambling Man's objections, and invited him to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the article has evolved well. It's a pity the PR wasn't better attended as all this kerfuffle could have been avoided, but I think you got there in the end... Congratulations. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is running well over time with significant opposes, yet no feedback for several days and no significant article edits since February 2nd. What is the status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The status for both FACs is that I'm on vacation in California, spending some time with the subject of my first featured article. I apologize for not responding, but the articles were nominated well over a month ago and I never dreamed they would take this long. I can't log on for any significant amount of time at the hotels I'm staying in, and I have none of my sources with me, but I'll be home tomorrow night and I hope to spend some time working on them then. --Moni3 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Moni3; have a safe trip home, and let's try to wrap these up quickly once you're back online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Some comments:

CloudNine's addressed comments

• Just looking through the references to see that they meet criterion 1c. A very small issue, but I spotted ref 105, which refers to a teaching website at the University of California. It seems to be out of place, as the rest of the sources are of such high standard. I wonder if you actually need that reference, as the fact that the "I Have a Dream" speech took place is fairly obvious (and you should be able to find a more authorative reference anyway)
• "The boycotts were declared 80 to 95 percent effective". By whom and why? No need to go into great detail, but it does seem to be lacking a little context.
• The Woolworth's link in Methods should link to the company itself rather than the person?
• "Not enough people were arrested to affect the functioning of the city" seems quite an awkward construction. You may want to rephrase it.CloudNine (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference from UC Irvine. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about 80 - 95% effective. It was quoted in a book from another book, and too many folks had questions about it. I don't have the book it's originally in and I can't explain it. Instead, I added a quote by the president of the Chamber of Commerce. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that Woolworth's link was changed a couple days ago by a well-meaning editor. I changed it back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the sentence about not enough people were arrested. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the article and I hope to have addressed your concerns. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"They caused downtown business to decline by as much as 40 percent, that got the attention of the Chamber of Commerce." "that" and "got the attention" seems a little awkward.

Ok, tweaked that sentence again. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"The letter responded to eight politically moderate white clergymen who had protested King's presence in Birmingham, saying that he was agitating local residents and that he had not given the incoming mayor a chance to make any changes." sounds as if King was accusing himself via the letter. CloudNine (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Altered that. --Moni3 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Right in front of Hudson stepped Parker High School senior Walter Gadsden as a police officer grabbed the young man's sweater and a police dog charged him." Needs rephrasing. "As" is a little ambigious here, and it doesn't read too clearly. CloudNine (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Changed that to "when".--Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: CloudNine invited to return here.--Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll continue to review the article. I'll probably support this after a good review. CloudNine (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on punctuation: I removed all punctuation from Project C and D Day references because I don't know how to punctuate them. Several of my sources punctuate them differently, where two don't punctuate them at all. I'm interested in simplicity right now. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.