Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Kevin Gately/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2023 [1].

Death of Kevin Gately

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gately was a student on his first anti-racism rally; he died that day, but no-one witnessed exactly how that happened. The tragedy of his death an interesting piece of London history and sits in counterpoint to the death of Blair Peach. Any comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Kevin-Gately-in-Red-Lion-Square-1974.jpg is missing a fair-use tag. This is described as a press photo - any idea which organization or agency?
  • File:Map_of_Red_Lion_Square_disorders,_showing_key_points_of_interest.png: see MOS:COLOUR
  • File:Leslie_Scarman.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki – you’re always so quick on picking these up, and it’s greatly appreciated.
  • Alt text added
  • Gatley: I’ll have to do some digging on this
  • No, unfortunately there's no credit given. The picture appeared in several regional newspapers at the time, but there was no photo credit I could see on any of them. FUR tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the map is probably OK (although if you see any problems, please let me know), so is the caption the only issue you see?
  • OK, I've enlarged the caption - de-emphasising the colour aspect: does that look OK now? I've requested a new map at the graphics lab, so hopefully there will be something better along in a while. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Front route:
  1. doesn't start at the edge of the map
  2. goes off-road and through buildings
  3. at the SE corner of Red Lion Square the lines don't quite meet
  4. Should probably include an arrow to show the direction of the march
  • Liberation march:
  1. goes off-road and through buildings
  2. the stems of some of the arrows are wider than route
  3. there should probably be a small arrow showing people going off the march and into Conway Hall
  4. the label 'Route of Lib CD' should be above (NM suggests the top right - so above where it says Theobalds Rd)
  5. the label 'clashes with protestors and police' at the left (at the Southampton Row junction) shouldn't be over the road name.
That just about covers it, I think! - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: do you want the route marches to run alongside the roads (which would keep the street names visible), or run along the middle of the road, covering the names? SN54129 14:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alongside would be good, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Also, how about colouring Conway Hall something else? It being red, it might be mistaken as a communist headquarters...which would be ironic. I think a brightish blue or gree should work, and still adhere to most:contrast. SN54129 16:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: The blue would be best, if anything, not such good results in green. Re. MOS:CONTRAST. SN54129 16:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good thought. Not so much about it being considered a communist building(!), but because the Liberation march is in red, so some people may think there is a connection between the building and Liberation. Blue works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check. See what you think. SN54129 18:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - thank you! - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced the link with the current one.
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I think I've covered all these, but please let me know if I need to do some more work on them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source and citation review by Dugan Murphy: Pass

[edit]

Will do in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The publication year for "News Reports" is formatted differently that its neighbors in the sources list. I think that is because it is lacking an author parameter.
  • Same for "South Place Ethical Society".
  • Same for "500 students march as Kevin Gately is buried".
  • Same for "Meeting Room 2 renamed 'The Kevin Gately Room'"
  • Same for "Kevin Gately"
  • For all these, there is no listed author, so the sfn template puts them into a different, but still correct, format. I’ve added the |author=<!--not stated--> parameter for the sake of completeness, but it doesn’t affect the format.
  • Fairhall uses "1974a" instead of "1974". Is that necessary?
  • I notice you use the sfnref "'Kevin Gately'. Ancestry", but the source listing doesn't mention Ancestry.com, which I'm assuming the use of that word is referring to. If that's how you accessed the death records, I think you should add that to the source listing.

The listed books are all held at academic libraries, which tells me they're reliable. The journals all seem legit. Websites look reliable. The Hansard transcripts certainly are. The death index also looks legit. Aside from the date issues I brought up in my first 6 comments, this list of sources is formatted consistently. So neat and tidy! The inline citations also seem appropriately and consistently formatted. Overall, well done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I believe you have adequately addressed and responded to all my comments.
If you are able, I would appreciate another set of eyes on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Logan (novel)/archive1.Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry

[edit]

I went over this in detail at the PR and everything I picked up was addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

I remember Blair Peach, don't remember this one though, despite being a London leftie in the early 1970s. Very interesting. Just jotting as I read through... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In total during the day were 711 foot-police and 25 mounted police;[27] with additional support, traffic and CID officers, there were 923 police deployed to marshal the two marches— Not sure about this. Either end sentence at ...mounted police or insert "from" or including" after support
  • Because of his height, his was caught—"he"
  • Liberation march—still having their open-air meeting in the square—and the National Front march—not sure last word is needed

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I had my two penn'orth at PR, and a re-reading just now brings hardly anything to light that I hadn't spotted earlier. Just four minor points, three of which are quibbles and one isn't:

  • "the Conway Hall Ethical Society on Red Lion Square" – would be better in English rather than American: "in Red Lion Square".
  • "the back door on Theobalds Road" – ditto
  • "their assembly point on the Embankment" – but that "on" looks right to me: "in the Embankment" would look odd.
  • Still at the Embankment, you link to the tube station, but from the context I imagine that linking to Victoria Embankment would be more accurate.

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there. I found myself a bit despondent to reflect that Gately, a year younger than me, would have turned seventy this year. A sad article, but comprehensive, highly readable, well and widely sourced, balanced and as well illustrated as I imagine such an article can be. Meets all the FA criteria in my view (though can we have something a bit jollier from the SchroCat production line next, please? Dearly as we loved, and still miss, Brian Boulton, his crown as king of disaster articles is not up for grabs). Tim riley talk 14:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HAL

[edit]
Thans Hal; that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Police reinforcements, including mounted police and units of the Special Patrol Group forced" => "Police reinforcements, including mounted police and units of the Special Patrol Group, forced"
  • "there was a rise in localised support, and the willingness to demonstrate against the National Front and its policies" => "there was a rise in localised support and the willingness to demonstrate against the National Front and its policies"
  • "Liberation, was formed in 1954 " => "Liberation was formed in 1954 "
  • "What Liberation did not know, was that " => "What Liberation did not know was that "
  • Suggest the heading "Scarman's Inquiry" should be "Scarman's inquiry", as I don't believe inquiry in this context is a proper noun
I've tweaked it slightly to have it as "Scarman Inquiry": it was an official inquiry, known in the press as the Scarman Inquiry. Does that suit? - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe put a [sic] in the quote "it was a 21-year-old student who died". as he wasn't 21
  • "The increasingly provocative actions by the National Front continued through the 1970s led" - not grammatically correct. Maybe "The increasingly provocative actions by the National Front continued through the 1970s and led"
  • That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - thanks very much Chris - I'm much obliged to you. With the exception of one, I've done the rest per your suggestions. I'd be happy to be persuaded on the Inquiry point too - I'm not married to it, it's just that "Scarman's inquiry" just looks like it's about a question he asked! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second nom?

[edit]

(Transferred from their talk page by Gog the Mild.) Hi Gog (or any FAC co-ords knocking about), Any chance of being allowed a second nom? I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Kevin Gately/archive1 ongoing, with the following stats: 2 weeks old; Inactive for 1 week; 1 nominator; 9 participants; 7 supports, image and source reviews both completed), and I'd like to put up a second one. No problems if it's a 'no': I can always wait a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Gog - much obliged to you!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Death_of_Kevin_Gately/archive1&oldid=1139606638"