Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Second opinion request[edit]

Of the more than half million biographies on wikipedia this is one of 200 at Category:Top-priority biography articles. For this reason, I am requesting a second opinion. I.E., it is an incredibly important article. I would have failed it based on my reading of the Early Life section because there is too much left unstated about this very public figure. The article is only 39.9 KB of readable prose, which is no where near the 50KB that begins to cause concern when one exceeds it significantly according to WP:SIZE. Since I know one section is lacking detail, I question whether this is true throughout. There is plenty of room for expansion because I would expect an article on such an important figure to be in the 45 to 50 KB range and push the limits on size. I have many questions below. However, I will not put this on hold until a second reviewer renders an opinion. The second opinion is a request for an opinion on completeness and breadth. Otherwise the article passes, IMO. Towards the end of my comments below are two specific items that I am unsure about marking this article down for and that need a second opinion. However, throughout I am unsure whether it is complete especially in the early life.

TonyTheTiger comments[edit]

      • Some comments now interleaved by other editors
  • What about a hatnote such as {{Redirect4|Martin Luther King|MLK}}
Fixed Tom (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph in WP:LEAD is a single sentence. Beef it up. Summarize his legacy.
Fixed Tom (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should mention (born Micheal King, Jr.).
    Not really; there's some debate over whether he was actually named that by his parents or whether it was a mistake by the delivering physician, who knew his Dad as Mike. His father indicated it was a mistake. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this mistake source? If this is not a truthful claim, it should not be in the article except as a clearly stated rumor. It is presented as fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to page 4 of Let the Trumpet Sound: A Life of Martin Luther King, Jr by Stephen B. Oates, published in 1993 by HarperPerennial (isbn 006092473X): "The elder King, of course, wanted his first son named after him. Since he was called Mike (his mother's name for him), the doctor entered Michael King, Jr., on the baby's birth certificate. Five years later — the year ML joined the church — Daddy officially corrected both their names to Martin Luther King, Sr. and Jr." GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. if it believed to be fact alternate names are usually bolded in the WP:LEAD paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • portions had been plagiarized - portions of what? Also link dissertation.
    Fixed --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Time Man of the Year unimportant even for a man of this stature?
Fixed. Already time person template at bottom of article. Added 1963 person of the year to award section. Tom (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by jpgordon.
Good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • King and the SCLC were instrumental in the unsuccessful Albany Movement in Albany, Georgia, in 1961 and 1962, where divisions within the black community and the canny, low-key response by local government defeated efforts;[40] in the Birmingham protests in the summer of 1963;[41] and in the protest in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964. - What did they do?
Fixed, Tom (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Tom (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not used separately from the war as far as I can see, apologies if misunderstanding, Tom (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that each time you use the word Vietnam it means the war and not the country in the Opposition to the Vietnam War section? It seems like a couple times it refers to the country.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, Tom (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 11:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their opposition incorporated arguments that the goals of Poor People Campaign - Given the number of nouns in the preceding sentence, this is a bit ambiguous.
Fixed Tom (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Tom (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ray took a guilty plea - seems to be incorrect grammatically. Does one take a guilty plea?
    Fixed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has been reported, however, had that Levison - Must be a grammatical error.
    Fixed and corrected --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something seems wrong to me about leading the Legacy section with a paragraph saying he was widely criticized during his civil rights participation. That would seem to me to be a counterpoint rather than the main point of his legacy. Is this misrepresenting his legacy? In the infobox, main body and in this section it seems you should mention notable people he is said to have influenced. I would think you could make a whole section of such people. The article almost makes it seem like he only influenced his own family and some other guy who won a Nobel prize.
    Thanks, have rearranged legacy section and moved contemporary criticism higher-up in the article. Tom (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something confusing about the fact that Reagan authorized King Day in 1986 and GHWB is shown in the picture signing it in 1992. Can the caption explain this more clearly?
    • Would be nicer to find a relevant Reagan picture. But this is GHWB signing the extension act, as is mentioned in Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Not sure how to properly clarify, but as I said, it would be better to have a picture of Reagan at the Rose Garden announcing the holiday. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to state how many current federal holidays there are and how list the individuals who have holidays recognizing them. Also, I think there is a story in the fact that in the confederacy for some time Robert E. Lee's birthday was recognized instead of King Day in many states. This may or may not still be the case in the 21st century now that all states recognize the day. Can you say whether financial markets are open on King Day or which year they first were closed. (Maybe such details belong in the underdeveloped Martin Luther King, Jr. Day) article. A second opinion would say whether this is needed here or in the dedicated article.
    This isn't an article about holidays; that can go in the article you suggest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image seems to be chopping up a paragraph the way this section is currently laid out. It seems to cause a paragraph to begin with a pronoun that be virtue of its lead position in a paragraph is ambiguous.
Fixed Bush image placement, Tom (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the recognitions section can you find any stats on how many public schools have been named after him.
    I found one source saying 121, one source saying over 200, but nothing really usable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that based on the publication date they are both right with 200 coming later or that one only counts high schools and the other counts all schools.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If succession boxes are in vogue, this article could use a couple for Person of the Year and his Nobel Prize. A second opinion would say whether such would be redundant with the templates.

TonyTheTiger review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    This is one of the cleanest articles I have ever seen at WP:GAC grammatically.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    In terms of WP:V it seems that it would be possible to source more of the claims to online resources such as Time.com, New York Times online, etc. This is just a personal preference for national public figures and not a GA requirement
  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:
    I will return after a second opinion is given.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk 2nd opinion[edit]

Images[edit]

Sources[edit]

  • This article cites a heroic number of sources, but only cites each about 1 time. Why are the main biographies and scholarly looks at MLK not being used to build this article? I'm not asking that this be changed for GAN (as it would be a pretty heroic undertaking), but a featured article reviewer should be looking for that. With a figure like king, every single library in the country will have at least 1 biography of him.
  • What is the determining criteria for the "References" section?
  • This article cites a few tertiary sources (basically, search for the string "encyclopedia" in the article, some will come back which really aren't encyclopedias, but some are). Those should be replaced, if possible, by material from secondary sources.

Layout[edit]

  • "Throughout his career of service, King wrote and spoke frequently, drawing on his experience as a preacher. His "Letter from Birmingham Jail", written in 1963, is a "passionate" statement of his crusade for justice.[58] On October 14, 1964, King became the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to him for leading non-violent resistance to end racial prejudice in the United States.[59]" this is very much out of place currently. the result of a copy/paste section move?
  • Stance on compensation This section is stuck between two entries in an otherwise chronological (roughly) list. It should be moved somewhere more appropriate.
  • Opposition to the Vietnam War Same story here. I know that we aren't bound to treat outlines as strictly topical or strictly chronological and I am also aware that this is a level 2 header and so forms its own section, but we should hash this out. Most of the presentation of the 1960-1968 period is strictly chronological. If we are to have these two topical outliers we should move them somewhere. We might also rework the sections to get a better mix of topical and chronological ordering. But that is a lot of work.
  • I agree with Tony. Early life is far too short.
  • Developments should be renamed to Later developments for clarity.
  • Chicago, 1966 If there is not a main article for the fair housing struggle in chicago, there should be. If none exists, then this section should be expanded.
  • "Bloody Sunday", 1965 Why is this not with the other Selma section?

POV[edit]

  • I probably won't note too many bullet points here. The article as a whole is relatively neutral. It isn't glowing and it doesn't wallow in criticism. A few points, questions:
  • Why isn't the MLKjr day section longer or more informative? That was a BIG deal in its heyday and still ruffles some feathers. I recognize that the section summarizes another article, but we can spare a few sentences.
  • How prominent is the discussion over MLK's putative views on the struggle for gay rights?
  • The conspiracy section is a little troubling. As I see it, both the MLK and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories (or a collection of them) are REALLY widely believed, but have about 0 grounding in fact. The conspiracy section should make clear that it is largely felt by scholars and law enforcement that Ray shot MLK and that a conspiracy was unlikely.

Small issues (non MOS)[edit]

  • "Besides winning the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, in 1965 King was awarded the American Liberties Medallion by the American Jewish Committee for his "exceptional advancement of the principles of human liberty"" Why are these two in the same sentence? Not to belittle the American Liberties Medallion but the phrasing of the section leads me to believe that they would be related in some fashion. Are they?
  • "The King Memorial will be administered by the National Park Service." wikilink to Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial?
  • "There is some debate even within the King family as to where he would have stood on gay rights issues." this sentence and the following ones follow awkwardly from the family legacy. I understand the segue (discuss family, then discuss family vies of MLK and homosexuality), but is there a better place for this?
  • "Ralph Abernathy, a close associate of King's, stated in his 1989 autobiography And the Walls Came Tumbling Down..." This little string of sentences about extramarital affairs is buried in the FBI section. Should a Personal life section be created? Or is it better here since the FBI was responsible for many of the rumors?
  • "The jury of six whites and six blacks found Jowers guilty and that government agencies were party to the assassination." Why is the racial composition of this jury important?
  • "William F. Pepper represented the King family in the trial.[129] King biographer David Garrow disagrees with William F. Pepper's claims that the government killed King." these two sentences are sort of a non-sequitor. Was there originally a sentence in between detailing Pepper's conspiracy claims?
  • The Assassination should note Ray's death near the end.
  • "King quoted a United States official, who said that, from Vietnam to South America to Latin America, the country was..." Whom did he quote?
  • "King was long hated by many white southern segregationists, but this speech turned the more mainstream media against him." More can be written about this. Specifically, there is some good stuff out there talking about how we "forget" this part of the history of King because it makes us slightly uncomfortable. Cornel West is kind of an agitator, but he's got a good point re: King and Vietnam.
  • "...uncovered the practice, now banned by the Real Estate Industry, of "steering"..." Is there a wikilink for "steering"?
  • "Gandhi's nonviolent techniques were useful to King's campaign to correct the civil rights laws implemented in Alabama." This is an odd sentence in an odd place.

MOS[edit]

  • Recheck the external links per WP:EL.
  • place years of protest in prose in the LEAD rather than in parenthesis.

Overall[edit]

This article is pretty close to GA status. Here is what is critical:

  • fix the obvious errors above (sections out of place, MOS stuff, etc.)
  • Expand the "early life"
  • Fix image problems.
  • Clarify conspiracy section

Other than that, consider the remarks above as peer review for FAC (unofficially, don't archive it as the A-class review). There are many points in this article that can stand to be improved. the quickest way to do this is to crack open a few good King biographies and look for personal motivation and introspection. The Chicago section (to pick one out of a hat) misses all sorts of information about King making specific decisions about coming to chicago and meeting with daley (and negotiating). It notes the negotiations but doesn't talk about them. I realize we are a tertiary source but we should write a biographical article that makes the subject seem as though he were alive, rather than just a conduit for history. Again, this is largely an FAC thing, not GAN. Once the above bits are fix and the early life section expanded, I'll pass this article (unless Tony has some strong objections). Protonk (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am interpreting your review as saying a lot of stuff is missing, but not a sufficient amount to derail a GAC. My main concern was comprehensiveness. Therefore, I will endorse a GAonhold and hopefully an eventual GA listing when your concerns are addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a correct reading. The points in the "overall" bit are important for this to be listed as a GA, but the rest are mostly peer review comments. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk thanks for all those pointers. I'm working on election articles at the moment, so I'm not sure when I'll have time to fix any remaining critical elements but I'll try and get back as soon as I can and there are quite a few hands interested in the article so i'm sure it'll get fixed soon. Tom B (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsolicited comments: I wrote Birmingham campaign (the article), and it's worrisome that the section in this article copies the lead in Birmingham campaign. I am deeply concerned with Protonk's issue that many sources are in the bibliography but only cited once. That worries me that GoogleBooks was used instead of actual books. I don't have the time to give a thorough GA review, but King deserves an article where the standards are extraordinarily high. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at article. Why is it worrisome that the section in this article is the same as the lead in another article, isn't that part of wp:summary style? What's wrong with Googlebooks? The King article deserves the same treatment as other articles, all articles should meet the same GA standards which I think are high, FA is higher. Tom B (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moni means that a biography of this importance should be treated with loving care. Copying the lead of another article for a section is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, but it shows that the section wasn't really written with king in mind. Further, there is nothing wrong with google books, but a good biographical treatment of king shouldn't just rely on web available text. As for your assertion that the king article deserves the same treatment as others...I don't agree. I'm inclined to be harder on an article like this than on some obscure subject. This is likely to see a lot more traffic and a lot more scrutiny than other articles. We are the top hit on google for Martin Luther King and Martin Luther King, Jr.. This is also a core biography, so it should expect to see more attention. This isn't all negative. It also means that no one will want for sources when talking about King. There are articles I have written about subjects which are just fundamentally limited by the lack of sourcing (take Bloody Sunday (1969), for example) where the article will likely never improve. This article has enormous potential for improvement and peer review helps that. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Loving care, darn, i thought we were just looking at whether it was GA! :-) If someone had simply copied the lead of the Birmingham section without attempting to tailor it with the King relevant parts there would be an issue with that. However, in response to a review request above, I did spend time tailoring it with King in mind - though, as always, there is more work to be done. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of having a GA treatment of King relying on only web available text, though there are over 100 non-web references in the article. The article does receive more scrutiny and therefore one could argue conversely, it would not initially need to meet as high standards as other articles, because errors would be more likely to be found and improvements forthcoming. However, I still think we should apply the same standards to all articles. kind regards Tom B (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk spoke accurately about my misgivings. This article may meet the most basic criteria of GA. But why in the world in an article about Martin Luther King, would you want to meet the most basic criteria of anything? To save time and effort? The section on Birmingham campaign isn't summarized, it's copied (nevermind that as an article writer I think that's pretty low). In order to spend time and effort doing what else? Sorry, Dr. King. We couldn't muster cracking the most comprehensive tomes written about your life and influence (Pulitzer Prize winners, at that) and expending the effort to write original words. We were busy doing something else. I know my personal indignation is not criteria for passing this article, unfortunately, but I would not bring an article to GA unless I though I thought it had a chance at FAC. Martin Luther King! Inspiration for generations around the world. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my selectively copying relevant non-copyright material in order to deal with a reviewer request could be fairly characterised as "pretty low". Every edit I've made over the last 7 years has been made with the intention of improving the encyclopedia. Tom B (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as fervent as moni, but I share some of her/his misgivings. I said in the review above that I would pass this article even if the sourcing issues weren't resolved, mostly because it is clear to me that some significant effort went into this work and that it would be an incredible undertaking to remake the article with some more in depth sourcing. Also, unlike moni, I will pass a GA that I know would fail an FAC. I think the answer here is to fix the immediate problems at hand and then take sections on at a time. 60k of text is hard to fathom reworking as a volunteer effort, but a 4 paragraph subsection is much more manageable. Protonk (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to revisit my comments, here. Let's see if I can do that and still make my point. Tom, you're doing both very worthy work and at the same time getting involved in an article that has the potential to be a hornet's nest for controversy from people who love and loathe King. I haven't taken on this article myself, because I'm so overwhelmed with the amount of work and potential for criticism that it frightens me. I figure for it to reach FA it would take 6 months to a year and no less than 5 trips to ANI for the problems that may arise from it.
I realize my unsolicited comments, considering the work you've done, are unwelcome and have probably made you angry. It's not my intention to cause discord or otherwise discourage editors from working on articles. I'm glad someone is doing work on this one. The standards for this article on the face of things are the same as the 1,000th irritating episode of Family Guy. But they are not. When writing articles at GA and FA level, attention to quality and detail should be the primary consideration. Personifying the characteristics of Dr. King, in this case, is appropriate. Behave and edit better than what people expect of you. If people expect a summary and copying it from another article fits the criteria, do better. Write it yourself, and make it original and accurate. Dr. King deserves it. Copying free information may be legal, but it is my personal conviction that it is not right. And think of all the juicy information that is being overlooked by missing chapters and pages of Google Books.
So, this may be promoted to GA. I have little bearing on that. But don't ever stop improving, reading, and working on the topic you undertake. Don't ever stop. This article has the potential to be a tremendous piece of literature, influential to millions, not a mirror of hundreds of similarly written summaries of King's life. In my surprise that someone had copied from the article I wrote, I posted more negatively than positively. I can do better too. Honor your subject. Personify his life. Make this the best it can possibly be. --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some clarification about the Google Books sources: I was the one that added many of the sources, and I did use Google Books for many of them. Until very recently, I was always told that published print sources are better to use in citations (that seems to have changed over the past couple of months). I don't have a lot of books about King available to me, so I used the few that I own and used Google Books to find some of the other information. Say what you want about Google Books, but this is what the article looked like before I started. The article had been around for well over six years, and the majority was unreferenced. I added 146 sources using print sources, reliable web sources, and Google Books. There is now a reliable source for every sentence of prose in the article. I don't pretend to be an expert on Martin Luther King, Jr., but I took the initiative to do fact checking for the article and to fix any statements that were not backed up by reliable sources. I would hope that people can see that the positives outweigh the negatives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict - response to Moni: No worries, I think the best thing in this context is to concentrate on whether it meets GA or not. There a lot of suggestions for improvement so people may feel it doesn't pass now but people can work on the pointers above and then renominate in a few weeks/months, take it easy Tom B (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GCF, in my experience writing GAs and FAs I have come to learn as much about finding information as I have about the topics I've written about. The first GA and FA I got was of a person who had lived a double life under a pseudonym for more than 50 years, a writer whose books were never reviewed by respectable publications. I am somewhat blessed to have access to a university library, which makes a lot of my research very easy. Even then, I still don't know about every source available. It seems every new article I write, I find a new avenue for information I did not know existed. My first FA on the person who lived a double life is, I would say, the most comprehensive resource on her life published anywhere. Books about King are prevalent. If your public library has one or two, public libraries have Interlibrary Loan Departments, where you can request books from other library systems. If you live close to a college or university, you can use their materials, and there may be a way for non-students to check out materials. I have surprised myself with how far I will go to get a citation, an image, a quote for an article. I thought when I first poked around on Wikipedia what a monumental effort it would be to go farther: to the library, for a microfilm, to pay for an article, to buy a book. I write dozens of emails for each article, constantly searching. I'm a bit embarrassed to say the kind of money I've spent on books and materials for the articles I've contributed to (I figure if I like the book anyway and will use it in the future, it's ok to buy it). I have a crass statement on my user page that says getting an FA is combination of Zen-like patience and complete batshit insanity. The unique merging of the two is necessary to search, search, search and pester, pester, pester librarians, historians, archivists, and sometimes friends and family members of your subject.
Protonk thinks I'm dedicated to Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is more the vehicle to express my dedication for the subject. I dream about these things. I talk to the subjects I write about (batshit insanity) in my sleep, these things turn over and over in my brain like engines fueling a never-ending quest to exorcize them from my mind. There's a precipice right around a GA where over it you go and you will enter the realm of obsession. That's good. Go on over it. Use writing an article so good it makes angels cry as a way of bringing yourself out of it. Sometimes I think these things are self-evident, and I forget they are not. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoting[edit]

Per discussion with Tony on my talk page, I am going to assume responsibility for passing/failing this article. I don't feel that this article meets the GA criteria yet and I feel that holding this article further is not beneficial for everyone involved. The article was listed on the 27th of August and reviewed on the 5th of September. 2nd opinion comments were left on the 12th. The last non-formatting change to the article was made on the 17th. I don't see a lot of progress on the primary issues raised by Tony or me. I think this is by and large a very well written and researched article. I don't feel that it meets the GA criteria for the reasons stated above and I don't feel a continued hold is going to change that significantly. If you have a problem with this close please say so here or on my talk page. If you feel this close was way out of line, please list this article at Good Article Review. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr./GA1&oldid=1068424436"