This review is transcluded from Talk:African Civilization Society/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading this: a well put-together article on an interesting and important topic.

Thank you and I agree! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I do believe I have addressed all your comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The American Colonization Society (ACS) was established in 1816 with the mission of encouraging African Americans, both enslaved and free, to emigrate to West Africa and establish a colony.: I'd suggest clarifying that this was founded by white Americans, in contrast to the African Civilization Society. I'd also suggest not using the ACS acronym for both institutions.

I agree. I added the note about race and I changed the article so the American Colonization Society is never abbreviated as ACS. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would African-American self-determination be a better link than just self-determination?

I think so! I didn't realize such an article existed. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• nationally-recognized Black leaders ... After 11 years of service: this is a little close to promotional language: can it be put more neutrally?

I decided to just delete "nationally-recognized". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another good solution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unfortunate to have Garnet and Delany listed as cofounders next to the text on the American Colonization Society: I would clarify in the caption which organisation they founded.

I see how that could be confusing. Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the broader movement of African colonization : I would suggest rephrasing this to be clear that we're not talking about the broader movement of African colonization as part of European imperialism in the same period.

I see how those things could be easy to conflate. I unpiped that Wikilink so it now says "Back-to-Africa movement". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 compromised the safety of free Black Americans by making them susceptible to kidnapping: I would suggest spelling out a little more how this worked: at least in theory, the law didn't make it legal to kidnap free Black people.

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the Missouri Compromise: again, it might be worth setting out briefly what the Missouri Compromise was, and why it mattered.

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest setting out in the caption where the Bible House was.

Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• British audiences were confused and found the two organizations in competition: I'm not sure what found the two organizations in competition means in this context.

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In April 1861, the ACS held a meeting to raise $10,000: did they raise that money at the meeting, or discuss how to raise it? If the former, is meeting quite the right word ("fundraiser"?)

Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nationality–the: this is an endash: use either an unspaced emdash or a spaced endash per MOS:DASH

Precisely! Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weeksville, Brooklyn, which was a free Black community established decades earlier: is it possible to be more specific than decades earlier?

Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A local chapter, the New York State Colonization Society, kept their offices in the same building and provided several members on the eighteen-member ACS board of directors: it's quite unclear which ACS is being talked about here, and which one the NYSCS was a chapter of.

I see. I think that's clear now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• asserting that their mission did not disrupt slavery: again, which ACS?

Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 'we prefer to remain in America;'": lose the semicolon.

Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does U.S. have periods when ACS has none?

Good point. Somebody else added those periods after I did my overhaul last year. Removed for consistency. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• to abolish slavery in the U.S. Suggest spelling out United States to make it clearer that this is the end of the sentence.

See previous comment. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works just as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• During the war: it would be worth explicitly spelling out the dates of the ACW, as we've earlier talked about events in 1867.

Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest linking "blue ribbon".

Seems helpful. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we hyphenate African-American, so do so in the quote too (MOS:CONFORM)

I'm taking my lead from the article title of African Americans. Let me know if there is a better determinant of a Wiki standard on this word. Non-hyphenation is certainly standardized within this article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, in that case. I haven't checked, but just NB that it's still hyphenated as an adjective (in that article and the MoS): e.g. prominent African-American leaders UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I've hyphenated the one adjective use outside a quote. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• However, the ACS started declining financially in 1866 and disbanded in 1869: does anyone know why this financial decline happened? The end of this story seems pretty abrupt: before this sentence, everything seemed to be going very well.

I know! If this level of detail is known, it wasn't written out in any of the sources I found on the subject. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Henry Highland Garnet by James U. Stead.jpg: checks out.
• File:Martin Robison Delany (before 1885).jpg: checks out.
• File:Yorubaland Cultural Area of West Africa.jpg: licensing checks out. This isn't honestly a great image to use: it has clearly modern features like national parks, and generally looks a bit tourist-brochure in style: more significantly, it doesn't seem to give any source for its data. This isn't a major problem for GA, but I'd suggest replacing if another suitable image can be found.

Thanks for the prompting on this. I picked out another one that I think fits the article better. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:(King1893NYC) pg638 THE BIBLE HOUSE AND OFFICES OF THE CHRSTIAN HERALD.jpg: check out.
• File:R L Perry.jpg: checks out.
• File:African Civilization Society Constitution Preamble 1861.jpg: not sure about the "ineligible for copyright" tag (the words here are certainly eligible for copyright), but the main PD tag is correct, so I'm happy here.

To follow once content points are addressed.

• What makes the African American Registry a reliable source?

According to their website, they're a nonprofit education organization with a board of directors that includes a few academics, educators, and/or historians. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:RS, the key question is whether the content undergoes editorial or peer review, and what form that review takes. Having skilled people on the board of directors is slightly parallel to that: I'm sure Wikimedia has some excellent people on its board, but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source because none of them have responsibility for vetting the content. My reason for concern here is that I can't see a name given for the author, and the two references are to a primary source (the ACS's constitution) and a non-academic magazine (the African Leaders Magazine). We need to positively demonstrate the source's reliability, and would usually do that by the credibility of the author, the academic status of the publication, the review process, etc etc -- I'm not seeing much to grab onto in that regard? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. Given that criteria, I don't think the African American Registry fits as a reliable source. I've removed it from the reference list, removed the in-text citations, and either replaced those citations with others that support those claims, or in one small instance, removed a small claim not supported by any of the other listed sources. It was cited four times in the article. In the first case (the claim about the Dred Scott decision), it said the same thing as Wellman pg 99, so I left that citation in place but removed the AAR. In the second case, I replaced the AAR citation with two others that, combined, made the same claim. Similar story with the third use of AAR, except that I also modified the sentence to remove a phrase supported only by AAR and not the other citations at the end of that sentence. For the last use of AAR, I swapped it out for a page in the Wellman book that mentions the People's Journal. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good: appreciate your diligence in sorting that one out neatly. I'll give the article another read and then get to sourcing and spotchecks. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Douglass ref needs a look for formatting: he did not write for the Teaching American History website. Suggest a reference to the effect of "Frederick Douglass, [speech title], [speech date], quoted in [citation to TAH]."

I just added the orig-year parameter to clear that up. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem for GA. Might want to think about a more formal/style-guide-driven way to do it if taking the article further in the future. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The BlackPast source is another worry for [WP:RS]]: the author seems to have no historical qualifications beyond a BA in German and European history, and while they do have an advisory board, it isn't clear that they explicitly review all submissions. This line in their "about us" -- Blackpast is made possible by the content contributions of over 900 volunteers from six continents -- makes it sound as if they are largely hosting user-generated content, which is a concern on the reliability front (WP:SELFPUB).

I have removed this source and all its citations. In some cases, the claims they supported were already supported by the other sources. In some cases, I removed or augmented the language to fit the replacement citations. Dugan Murphy (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, "History of Black Travel" seems to be non-academic, with no identifiable author, and cited only to a couple of sources, one of which is BlackPast -- here the concern above comes up.

In the one place where it was used, I replaced this citation with Encyclopedia.com. I had to slightly modify the claim it supports as a result. I will take a look at the Blackpast reference next, though this may take me a bit longer. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that Black-led organization really constitutes a type of organisation: we need something like "resettlement", "colonial venture" or similar in there, and something else to say "educational foundation" or similar.

I see what you're saying. According to Template:Infobox organization, this parameter is meant to be nonprofit, govt org, or NGO. I don't think any of those three terms apply well at this time in history, so I just deleted that parameter. I think the "purpose" parameter already says enough. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different topic: For the next two weeks, I may be show to progress on this nomination. I appreciate your patience. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I Believe I have addressed all of your comments. Thank you for reading through the article and for helping to improve it! Dugan Murphy (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: Pinging again to see if there is anything else that needs to be addressed before you think this article meets GAN. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]