Talk:Samuel Wilbert Tucker

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel Wilbert Tucker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded my review. This is a decent well-written article with a few minor problems, and a couple areas that should be expanded. I think this shouldn't be too difficult to do if someone is available to work on it. I will hold this article for up to a week. Aaron north (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• N Failing the article today, nothing has been done to address the concerns listed below. Aaron north (T/C) 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cliche or idiom in this sentence which should probably be re-worded with neutral language or replaced with some kind of attributed quote: (He also set his sights on becoming a lawyer at an early age...)

• This sentence (On August 21, five young black men whom Tucker had recruited and instructed – William Evans, Otto L. Tucker, Edward Gaddis, Morris Murray, and Clarence Strange – entered the library one by one, requested applications for library cards and, when refused, each one took a book off the shelf and sat down in the reading room until they were removed by the police.), at 8 commas and 2 dashes, is massive. It should probably be broken up somehow.

• It appears that there is more information that should be included regarding the moves by the Virginia bar to disbar Tucker. Your source from the Baltimore Afro-American points to the VA general assembly as the ultimate source of the action by the bar. The story talks about "anti-NAACP" laws that were passed specifically (according to the story's writer, anyway) to direct state bars to harass civil rights lawyers like Tucker. When I search "virginia anti-NAACP laws", I find historical information and analysis apparently corroborating that story. You probably don't have to discuss the so-called "anti-NAACP laws" in-depth, that might be worthy of its own article since apparently many states passed those laws in the 1950's in an attempt to keep NAACP lawyers from bringing suits in their states. However, it should definitely be talked about since this doesn't appear to be a rogue state bar acting on its own to harass Tucker without direction.

• Couple problems with this. (The NAACP rallied to his defense in fighting what it viewed as an attempt to derail legal desegregation in Virginia and the case was repeatedly dismissed/non-suited.) Cliche in bold should probably be replaced, and the end looks odd. A slash "/" in prose is a bit uncommon, and I'm not sure that a lay audience would have any idea what non-suited means.

• If you have a source, then this should be expanded on. (Also in 2000, the Richmond, Virginia City Council voted to rename a bridge after Tucker, an action that was a matter of some controversy.) "Matter of some controversy" is a bit unsatisfying. Who was opposed, and what were their complaints?

• In this sentence (In 2001, the Young Lawyers Conference, a conference of the Virginia State Bar, implemented the Oliver Hill/Samuel Tucker Institute, named for legendary civil rights attorneys Oliver Hill and Samuel Tucker.), "legendary" seems rather strong. I might have used "respected", or perhaps even "renowned".

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Either a free or fair-use photo of his stone in Arlington, or a free or fair-use image of the monument in Emporia, VA might be a useful addition to the article in the Death and legacy section.

addressing anti-NAACP litigation and other GA issues

I cleaned up this article some more today and last week, then noted the main issue I addressed was also a reason for it not having achieved GA status 6 years ago! However, I have not had the time to read all the references, merely went to the Alexandria Library's local history collection to review the clippings today and used the best biography in it. One note said Ackerman was working on a longer biography, but the only sign of it I saw is the citation already in this article concerning an education periodical which I did not read, both because it was not available and because a more recent local history article said the Washington Post's article also from 2000 was the best bio available. FYI, I also added refs to 2 short bios in published local history books by small presses. Since the librarian noted that this coming weekend will be the sit-in anniversary celebration, I hope someone can clean up the citation style, as well as go to Arlington cemetery and see which brother's grave is next to SW Tucker's--one source says George, another Otto.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)