Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1

Lynching of Jesse Washington

Lynching of Jesse Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk)

The lynching of Jesse Washington was part of a sad chapter in American history, during which hatred and mob violence reigned supreme. This lynching is unusual in that it was captured in detail by a local photographer who was on hand as the events unfolded. I believe the article is up to the featured criteria; it has received a good article review from Grapple X and a peer review from Wehwalt and Crisco 1492. Note: contains graphic content, discretion advised. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I checked out the images during the article's GA review; all of them checked out fine then and no new files have been added in the meantime. I'm about to check the article again to review the subsequent prose changes but I figured I'd note this early to save it being done twice. GRAPPLE X 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - My comments were all addressed at the peer review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Wording: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas ..." - The word "attrition" may confuse some readers. If you mean decrease, use a plainer word. Is there a better wording?
• Non sequitur: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas, local historians often avoided discussing the practice." - it is not clear to me why the latter follows from the former.
• Clarify: "Waco developed a reputation for racism—seen in American history textbooks—to the vexation ..." - What was seen in the textbooks? that there was racism, or merely that Waco had a reputation (unfounded?). Clarify.
• Need info on modern guesses about guilt. Footnote (a) says " In 2011, Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, ...". That seems like critical material that should be in the body of the article (in the Analysis section) not in a footnote.
• Paragraph on theories of murder: The article says "George Fryer also sued the college for libel; his vehemence caused some Robinson residents to suspect that he played a part in his wife's death ...". Do any modern 2ndary sources support that theory? If so, it may be good to include a paragr in the article listing the possible scenarios of what happened to the victim.
• Specify years: "The practice of lynching gradually declined, ..." - needs more specificity on the year, because the prior sentence says "The number of lynchings in the U.S. increased in the three years ..."
• Need external link: The Crisis is available online, and this article should contain a link, perhaps in References section, or in External Links section, pointing the reader to the issue that contained the Waco Horror article.
• Mentally handicapped? - The article says "James M. SoRelle of Baylor University notes that may have been mentally handicapped ..." - is it true that only one historian came to that conclusion? If it is the consensus of multiple historians, that fact should be in the lead; if not, leave it alone.
• Wording: "... have contained dubious low crowd estimates..." - I know that dubious is modifying "estimates" but the maybe "dubiously low" would be better? or re-word entirely to make it plainer.
• Capitalization of book titles: In Ref section: some book titles cap all leading letters; some only the first letter. Should be consistent.
• Citation needed: " ... some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." - Im guessing that the cite from the following sentence applies; but may as well include it for this sentence as well. See WP:INTEGRITY.
• Crisis article name: "After receiving Freeman's report, he placed an image of Washington's body on the cover of an issue of The Crisis, the NAACP's newsletter, which discussed the event.[78] In 1916, The Crisis had a circulation of about 30,000, three times the size of the NAACP's membership.[79] Du Bois popularized "Waco Horror" as a name ..." - You should include the name of the article ... was it "Waco Horror"? if so, include it and re-word this sentence.
• Crisis article date/month - include the month of publication.
• Ambiguity: "Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I.[89] Bernstein describes this effort as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years"" - What was the battle? Fund raising? or against lynching?
• More background: "After it became associated with violence in the 19th century, community leaders sought to change its reputation,..." - What was that 19th c reputation? For lynchings? for wild-west shoot outs?
• Grammar? - "There was a small number of anti-lynching activists ..." - Was or were? I'm not sure.
• Wording - "Apologists of lynching justified the practice as a way to assert dominance over African Americans ..." - "Apologists" seems wrong here: isn't that normally used in political/religious contexts? Maybe another word like proponents or defenders or supporters would be better.
• Non sequitur: "She spoke with Fleming and the judge who presided over the trial; both argued that they did not deserve blame for the lynching. Local African Americans gave her a better reception." - Not clear how "better" relates to prior sentence.
• Mind reading: "The individuals in the photographs made no attempts to hide their identities, indicating that they knew that no one would be prosecuted." - Perhaps reword to indicate that that is the interpretation or assessment of analysts/historians. The voice of WP shouldn't be making conclusive statements about persons intentions/thoughts.
• Sic link? - ""That's what I done [sic]" - Sic is linked here. Is that (the link) consistent with WP manual of style?
• Date needed: "On the morning of the trial, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity:" - that 1st sentence of the Trial section needs to include the date.
• Leaning towards support, once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)