Talk:Impeachment March/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not an issue for GA, but is there any reason to have the lead partially cited? Neither of the cited points seems controversial.
  • We kept an inline citation in the lead to confirm the "alternative" title ("Impeach Trump"). I removed the sentence and inline citation with a general statement about July 4, which is not specific to the Impeachment March. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

    OK, but since the lead should only contain material that is in the body, we should put that in the body too, and then we could cite it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

    @Mike Christie: According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations says there are times when citations can appear in the lead. I'd prefer to keep the alt name in the lead, and not repeat "sometimes referred to as the 'Impeach Trump' protest" within the article body, if that works for you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

    It was actually the info missing from the body rather than the cite itself that bothered me, but I think this counts as a "basic fact" per WP:LEAD, so that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do we need the statement from Zimmerman that Fourth of July protests have a long history? This is not mentioned in the body (which it should be if it's going to be in the lead). It's just a general statement. If you want to keep it, I think it's a background statement that would fit better in the body and doesn't need to be in the lead. That sentence also has a grammatical issue: "marks" requires a singular subject.
  • I removed the claim. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Organizers for the march expressed that they felt that President Trump is in violation of the United States Constitution: make this "was" in violation; they probably feel he still is but we're doing historical narrative here. I would also consider combining this with the next sentence to make it less wordy: perhaps "Organizers of the march felt that President Trump was in violation of the United States Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause, and that he had committed obstruction of justice by dismissing Sally Yates and James Comey."
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Why are we mentioning the cancelled march in Portland? Seems like a minor fact; is it really noteworthy?
  • I just included since there was press coverage. I would say, Portland is known to be a very politically active community, especially during Trump's presidency (see March for Science Portland, Women's March on Portland). In some way, not participating is out of the ordinary. But I can see where you're coming from. I'd prefer to leave, but I'm also willing to remove if you feel strongly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• The march organizers who are not notable and have no other interesting attributes probably don't need to be named: Diana Dalnes, Suzy Scullin, David Love, Gina Merchan, Sharyn Richardson, Karan Barnett Shirk, Natasha Salgado. Possibly Adriene Avripas too, though at least she's head of a relevant organization.
  • So, your suggestion goes against the feedback we received for the similar Not My Presidents Day article, where we were asked to be more specific about who was organizing events and why. Again, I see where you are coming from, but I think adding mention of event organizers is relevant and helpful when they are confirmed by secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

    Well, it's not something that falls under WP:GACR; I mentioned it just as an opinion about what is worth including. Imagine reading this, as someone unfamiliar with the march; you'll keep seeing these names that aren't linked and have almost no context. They interrupt the flow of real information (what marches happened and where). But it's fine to leave it in if you prefer to. I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• If Cheri Bustos and Dave Loebsack are in Congress, can we get links for them, even if they're redlinks?
  •  Done. (They are linked in the "Motivation and planning" section.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

    So they are; I missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

--That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Doing... @Mike Christie: Thank you for reviewing this article. I am usually very quick to respond to good article reviews, but I was helping to run a Wikipedia edit-a-thon on Thursday, and I am training new editors at another one today, so I'm just a bit distracted. I will address your concerns as soon as I have some spare time. @Megalibrarygirl: Pinging you as a status update, too. Thank you both for your patience! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've replied to all of your concerns. I did not remove the names of individual organizers, or the fact that the PDX event was cancelled, but I am happy to revisit these if you feel strongly about removing specific content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Believer, I've struck almost everything; just one minor point left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Everything is addressed; promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and assistance. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.