Talk:Noel F. Parrish/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 13:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I will be beginning this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks Mathew .. I'll do the best I can. — Ched :  ?  16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Review (I will be adding as we go along)

• Lede

• not noted that Parrish wasn't black. - reader has to look at the image and wonder.

• • fixed. PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• "The highest recognized presentation during a 2001 National History Day competition concluded that the Tuskegee Airmen experiment was instrumental in laying the foundation for the civil rights movement in the 1960s and became a large factor in President Harry S Truman's decision to desegregate the military in 1948." This is in the lede and doesn't mention Parish. Also, apparently it's not in the article.
• the lede should clearly state what Parrish's contributions were, what he is notable for.
  • In revisiting this I think you are right in the sense that it's a bit too much of a tangent to be included in the lede. As such, I pulled that part out and replaced it with how he got started at Tuskegee and what positions he progressed to. Does that help? — Ched :  ?  12:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tuskegee Experiment - as heading - don't most people think of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment when Tuskegee Experiment is mentioned? (that's where the redirect goes.) I realize the source refers to "the so-called "Tuskegee Experiment," [1] but I think the article has to clarify this if it's going to use the term. At least put it in quotes.
  • fixed by adding "airmen"; noting various terms are used IRL but this should clarify it. PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Formation of the Tuskegee Experiment

• Most of this section doesn't mention Parrish but is general information about the formation of the "Tuskegee Experiment".
• Just says, "As Director of Training and later Tuskegee Field commander, Parrish played a key role in the program's success." - doesn't explain his "key role" until way down in the "Initial problems" subsection.

Note that the program started well before he got there, he became dir of training in Dec 1941 and wasn't commander til Dec 1942; most of what what happened was before that. So I'm not sure what to do here while I think it important to keep this info in. PumpkinSky talk 12:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Active air units - this subsection doesn't mention Parrish

Cut this and the combat record, merging to the main tuskegee airmen article, leaving only the summary that was already there. PumpkinSky talk 13:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tuskegee experiment results

• "The "Tuskegee Experiment" was a tremendous success, in which Parrish played a significant role,[7] and proved that blacks could perform well in both leadership and combat roles. Parrish felt people should be judged by their capability, not their color.[7] He would return from Washington DC depressed because of the massive resistance to the Tuskegee program." - is this contradictory? It was a "tremendous" success?

• Reworded to History views the results of the "Tuskegee Airmen Experiment" as a tremendous success, in which Parrish played a significant role,[7] and proved that blacks could perform well in both leadership and combat roles.[14] Parrish felt people should be judged by their capability, not their color.[7] During its development Parrish would often return from Washington DC depressed because of the massive resistance to the Tuskegee program. .. better and less ambiguous? — Ched :  ?  14:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps some quotes by Parrish could be added from here:-e.g. Page 250-51, Page 256 to 259 There is some more information about his specific experiences in this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a Parrish quote to the After Tuskeegee section. PumpkinSky talk 01:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   Problems as noted above

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   *Lede needs to summarize Parrish's specific contributions

   *(see comments above)

   *IMO, needs to specify he is white, as there are quotes available that refer to this: (e.g. from the book linked below: "Col Parrish was one of the few white men at that time who dared to express the conviction that Blacks shoud be accepted and treated as first class citizens." (needs to go in body of the article also)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   There is something wrong with the first reference http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/aome/tuskegee.htm - at least on my computer - a "runtime" error.

That's an ASP error from the server, IOW the server hosting the webpage has a problem. Hopefully it'll be back up soon. PumpkinSky talk 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to pull up with no problems for me on my end. At least at the moment. — Ched :  ?  20:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   *(see comments above)

   *Talks a lot about the Tuskegee Airmen, most of which is in that article, but almost nothing about what Parrish did. His name is mentioned once in this section, the largest in the article, until the much smaller subsection "Initial problems" at the section's end. Much use of passive voice, so the reader never knows who implemented what.

   B. Remains focused:

   *(see problems noted above)

   *Talks about "Tuskegee experiment", the Tuskegee airmen, racial segregation etc., and has too little about what Parrish did specifically. It could contain more about his view, statements he made, decisions he made, actions he took, and specific problems he encountered.

   *The "Initial problems" is GOOD because it does focus on Parrish.

1. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I will put this on hold for seven days. Please feel free to contact me with questions and/or feedback.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• This article might be helpful. It mentions some specifics about Parrish and is purportedly from a book.from a book called Red Tails Black Wings by John B. Holway - what do you think? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Great links, thank you, I think between this, previous links, and other links listed by others that perhaps the article could undergo even more expansion. Do you think that will need to be done prior to moving to GA? — Ched :  ?  19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Prior to being assigned to Tuskegee, he had no particular involvement nor concern with black Americans." - Yet the next sentences give example of how he was interested in black Americans before Tuskegee. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• reworded to "Prior to being assigned to Tuskegee, he had not been actively involved with any of the black Americans' causes. Parrish had as a youth however, hiked three miles to see where a black man had been lynched." I got the impression from the article used for this that while he was not active in any particular movement regarding blacks, he was however aware of the issues at the time. Hopefully this states that line of thinking a bit better. — Ched :  ?  19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with your rewording. Also, he sacrificed a combat career to remain at Tuskegee and thus to some degree his career, as combat experience is require to climb high. I have been looking at the sources and wishing that more could be added to the article about him personally. Somewhere I came across some personal info, that he was interested in the arts, etc., but I can't find it now. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the article is immensely improved and ready to pass. Good work!

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

THANKS! Your review was thorough, helpful, and fair. PumpkinSky talk 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)