Talk:Rosa Parks

"White" of "white"

Why does the article use uppercase white? Graham Beards (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Graham Beards:, I see you have now fixed this. You are correct, of course. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That would have been because of MOS:RACECAPS. Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

whats this 50.171.194.194 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with lowercase white. It now needs Blacks to be in lowercase also to be consistent. Parks recalled going to elementary school in Pine Level, where school buses took white students to their new school and Black students had to walk to theirs: must be wrong.

Is I'd see the bus pass every day ... But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a Black world and a White world. an exception as the 'worlds' counter each other. Is it a Black World and a White World, I am unsure. BlueWren0123 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@BlueWren0123 @Graham Beards @Mike Marchmont I agree. It needs to be equal. If Black is capitalized, then White should be capitalized. If not, then both should be uncapitalized. AppGoo0011 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m black 62.30.197.81 (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2024

Little studied is the impact of Rosa Parks' robust yoga practice in her activism. In 1973, she started demonstrating her yoga at activist gatherings. Historian Natalia Mehlman Petrzela writes in her book Fit Nation (2022) that it "was important to her life but long unacknowledged as part of her civil-rights activism". A photograph available in the Library of Congress shows her in 1973 in leotards on her knees on a yoga mat. Queen Peen (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

SFN Conversion

Hello! I am about to convert a number of the citations to SFN style in anticipation of a major overhaul as part of WikiProject Women in Green (see Talk). If there are any issues with the new citations, please feel free to correct them or point them out on this talk page. Thank you for your patience. Spookyaki (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2025

- Add line break between the education/schools listed in the infobox.

Rosa Parks
Parks in 1955, with Martin Luther King Jr. in the background
Born	Rosa Louise McCauley (1913-02-04)February 4, 1913 Tuskegee, Alabama, U.S.
Died	October 24, 2005(2005-10-24) (aged 92) Detroit, Michigan, U.S.
Resting place	Woodlawn Cemetery, Detroit
Education	Montgomery Industrial School for Girls Alabama State Teachers College for Negroes (now Alabama State University
Occupation	Civil rights activist
Known for	Montgomery bus boycott
Movement	Civil Rights Movement
Spouse(s)	Raymond Parks (m. 1932; died 1977)
Signature

Ww55d (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done, Thank you for both a good find and suggestion and for bringing it to the attention of the talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March

Please change "The crowd The crowd overwhelmingly supported continuing the boycott" to "The crowd overwhelmingly supported continuing the boycott" 59.182.201.3 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out! Spookyaki (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 21:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Review by Noleander

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments from Noleander

• First, thanks for working on this article about an important figure in US history. Stats show you wrote 67% of the prose, so you did some work.

• Overall, looks like a very, very nice article. I see no problem getting GA for this.
  • Thank you! It's also pretty long, so thanks for taking the time to review it. Spookyaki (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ambiguity Parks was the 31st individual, and the second private citizen, to be laid in state, following French urban planner Pierre L'Enfant. "following" could mean (a) Pierre L'Enfant was the first private citizen; or (b) he was the prior person laid in state private or public. I speculate it is the former.... but why make the reader work to figure it out? Consider: Parks was the 31st individual, and the second private citizen, to be laid in state (following French urban planner Pierre L'Enfant). or Parks was the 31st individual, and the second private citizen, to be laid in state.[footnote here about 1st private citizen]
  • Done. Spookyaki (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Connect two separate texts, if appropriate: Before December 1955, several people were arrested for declining to give up their seats on Montgomery buses. Maxwell Air Force Base employee Viola White was arrested in 1944, ..... Additional arrests included Aurelia Browder on April 29, 1955, and Susie McDonald on October 21, 1955.[62] Smith, Colvin, Browder, and McDonald were the plaintiffs in the 1956 lawsuit ... and Theoharis states that Parks's "act was separated from a community of people who prepared the way for her action", .... If those two are related, consider adding some text to connect them.
  • Ultimately, I decided it made more sense to just remove the latter Theoharis quote. It's actually referring primarily to her civil rights activism outside of her refusal to move, but it's not really clear from the quote. Spookyaki (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• On the same two sections of text: Before December 1955, several people were arrested for declining to give up their seats on Montgomery buses. Maxwell Air Force Base employee Viola White was arrested in 1944, ..... Additional arrests included Aurelia Browder on April 29, 1955, and Susie McDonald on October 21, 1955.[62] Smith, Colvin, Browder, and McDonald were the plaintiffs in the 1956 lawsuit ... and Theoharis states that Parks's "act was separated from a community of people who prepared the way for her action", .... I seem to recall reading several years ago that there was some envy or sense of unfairness that Parks was singled out for attention, when there were other activists that played comparable roles in the Montgomery activism. I don't see any explicit mention of that envy/unfairness. But maybe I'm recalling incorrectly. Not saying it has to be in the article for GA, but if you take it to FA it should be there.
  • I believe that's true. I'll look for some sources that discuss this and maybe make some adjustments to the historiography section. Hopefully will adress the above point as well. Spookyaki (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Okay, added a paragraph to "Historiography". Spookyaki (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• See also section: good that the links have some brief text after them. Consider using template {{Annotated link}} which will provide that text automatically. Not required for GA, just a suggestion.
  • To be honest, didn't touch the See also section much myself, but will make the adjustment. Spookyaki (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Further reading source Morris, Aldon (Summer 2012). "Rosa Parks, Strategic Activist .... cite should have a | ref=none tag. Not required for GA, just a suggestion. Without that tag, article QA tools show a warning for that source: "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMorris2012."
  • Done. Spookyaki (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Alphabetizing: See Also section: it is customary to list articles in alphabetical order. Not required for GA, but you'll need to do that if you take the article to FA.
  • Done. Spookyaki (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Alphabetizing: Category list at bottom: it is customary to list articles in alphabetical order (except the "Rosa Parks" category must be first). Not required for GA, but you'll need to do that if you take the article to FA.
  • Done, I think. Spookyaki (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• I ran the copyright violation tool and it said there are no problems. Tool at https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rosa+Parks&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

• Clarify wording in lead? Parks faced financial hardship and health issues as a result of her participation in the boycott, leading her to relocate to Detroit, Michigan This seems to suggest that the finance/health issues were the direct cause of the move; e.g. in Detroit there was special medical care and a solid job offer. But when reading the body text, it paints a different story: the health/financial issues kinda led he to move around a bit, and she eventually ended up in Detroit. Consider (in the lead) separating the two thoughts into two sentences? Parks faced financial hardship and health issues as a result of her participation in the boycott. She traveled around the country, eventually relocating in Detroit, Michigan or skip the financial issues entirely (in lead): In 19xx Parks relocated to Detroit, Michigan
  • She didn't really travel around the country. She was offered a position in Tennessee, but did not take it, and worked briefly in Virginia (while her family was still in Detroit). You're right that it wasn't strictly the financial hardship/health issues that led her to move. Tensions with the MIA/threats to her safety also played a significant role. I'll go with the latter wording. Spookyaki (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• clarify wroding: Alabama and other southern states began implementing segregationist policies during the 1870s and 1880s, culminating in a 1901 constitutional convention that formally codified Jim Crow segregation into law. U.S. readers will think "constitutional convention" is a federal event, for the federal constitution. Is there a way to let readers know it was specific to Alabama? Maybe Several southern states began implementing segregationist policies during the 1870s and 1880s. Alabama held a constitutional convention in 1901 that formally codified Jim Crow segregation into law.
  • Changed wording to "state constitutional convention". Spookyaki (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ambiguity: Responding to a plan by city officials to stall Parks's case in state circuit courts, Gray filed suit in federal court. While Parks was initially included as a plaintiff in this case, she was eventually removed to avoid federal dismissal on the grounds that her case was already being heard in Alabama's state court.[97] In the end, the case was brought before... It is not clear if "the case was brought" [near the end of this quote] refers to the federal case (that excludes Parks) or to Parks state case.
  • Clarified. "In the end, the federal case excluding Parks was brought before the Supreme Court as Browder v. Gayle, which ruled the statute mandating segregation of Montgomery buses unconstitutional." Spookyaki (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Connect two items: ... Little Caesars owner Mike Ilitch offered to pay for her housing expenses indefinitely. and When her rent became delinquent and her impending eviction was publicized in 2004,.. If sources are available, article should answer: Did Ilitch fulfill his promise or not? Was he paying cash to some fund, and the fund managers were embezzling? It's kind of a big deal, because there are tons of social media posts in U.S. over the past decade repeating the statement that "Little Caesers founder paid Rosa Parks rent for the rest of her life" and that should be confirmed or denied in this article, if sources exist.
  • I found this source Snopes ... and that refers to source "WXYZ-TV. "Mike Ilitch Paid for Rosa Parks' Housing for More Than a Decade." 11 February 2017." Snopes is a medium-strong source, but not the best.
    • So I'm not entirely clear on this. Snopes is actually citing the Sports Business Journal, which is already cited in the article, where judge Damon Keith, who allegedly ran the trust (paid for by Ilitch), confirms that Parks received checks from Ilitch. However, as you say, this doesn't quite square with the fact that Parks was almost evicted in 2002. It definitely seems plausible that this discrepancy is related to the alleged mismanagement of funds, but that's just speculation. For now, I will add that According to journalist Christopher Botta, writing for the Sports Business Journal, judge Damon Keith subsequently administered a trust disbursing checks from Illitch to Parks on a regular basis. What do you think? Spookyaki (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  The article also includes this: Several of Parks's family members alleged that her financial affairs had been mismanaged. From the sounds of it, Ilitch was paying every month into a trust or fund, and yet the landlord was not getting paid. There is a chance that someone in the pipeline was perhaps losing/taking the money? Of course, the article can only repeat what the sources say. Perhaps the best way to present it is According to journalist Christopher Botta, writing for the Sports Business Journal, funds from Illitch were regularly deposited into a trust managed on Park's behalf. That way it says that the money was going in, without getting into the murky issue of were they went after that. Noleander (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, it definitely seems plausible that the money was being embezzled or otherwise mismanaged. I cannot find any sources that directly make that connection, unfortunately. Went ahead and made the change. Spookyaki (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Images at bottom of "Historiography" section: not really relevant to Histography. Consider creating a section named "Gallery" there. See WP:GALLERY. Generally, galleries are discouraged for articles that are not about art/artists/architecture ... but I think an exception can be made here.
  • Sure, that makes sense. Originally the gallery was appended to the "Legacy and honors" section as a whole, which did not have a "Historiography" section. I've placed it in its own section. Spookyaki (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Archive information for sources that have URLs: example {{cite book |last=Theoharis |first=Jeanne |title=The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks |publisher=Beacon Press |url=https://archive.org/details/rebelliouslifeof0000theo_i7s2/ |publication-place=New York |date=2015 |isbn=978-0-8070-7692-7}} Typically, a cite that includes the "url" tag should also include a "access-date" tag which specifies the day the editor read the source (e.g. access-date=April 3, 2025). The purpose of the access-date tag is to assist the WP bot that goes thru articles and finds the arcived version of the source in the Internet Archive ... the bot will add an "archive-url" tag; the bot scans all articles in WP about once a month. For the bot to properly do its job, it needs to know what day the editor read/saw/visited the source url. The bot will find that specific date's backup copy and put that into the archive-url tag. That is all automatic. But if the editor did not include the "access-date" tag, the bot does not know what date to use. For urls that are static & not changing, such as "cite book" sources that use a Google Books url, adding "access-date" is not too important; bit it is important for citations to urls that (a) may disappear; (b) may evolve the content; or (c) may reogranize their web site so the page moves to a new url. Adding "access-date" is not required for GA, but I thought you'd want to know, since this article is so fantastic, it is nearly perfect.
  • Done, though I should note that I'm using my own copy of the book. The IA copy was already linked in the article, and it seemed like it would be useful to somebody who might be wanting to check the sources, so I left it in. Spookyaki (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
    • If you are using a hardcopy of the book, then there is no need for a "access-date" tag in the cite template; although adding it may be useful for future editors & readers. In the FA review process, reviewers will expect "access-date" tag for non-hardcopy sources that the nominator read online. Noleander (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Coverage: article covers the article broadly & to appropriate depth

• Neutral POV: Article has a neutral POV

• Sources: I did a casual spot-check of a couple of sources, and they look okay.

• Images: I checked images for copyright, and they seem to have proper free-use support.

• That is all I have. Notify me when you have addressed/resolved the above, and I'll do the the GA pass action. Note that some of the above are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hi! I believe most concerns have been addressed. Let me know what you think about the Ilitch stuff. Spookyaki (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Spookyaki Replied above under the Ilich item. Noleander (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Passed for GA. If you decide to take this to Featured Article, and want some assistance, I'd be happy to help in any way. Noleander (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 12:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Rosa Parks in 1955

• ... that Rosa Parks did not refuse to surrender her seat because she was physically tired, but because she was "tired of giving in"?

• Source: "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in." (Parks & Haskins, p. 116)

• ALT1: ... that Rosa Parks did not refuse to surrender her seat on a Montgomery bus because she was physically tired, but because she was "tired of giving in"? Source: "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in." (Parks & Haskins, p. 116)
• Reviewed:
• Comment: Former reads a little bit better to me, latter gives a bit more context. Not sure if it's necessary, given Parks's fame, but maybe.

Improved to Good Article status by Spookyaki (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Spookyaki (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Spookyaki: Thank you for upgrading such an important article to GA status. It was upgraded to GA status recently and a quick scan of the article shows no problems stopping it from becoming a DYK. Both of the hooks are fine. Jon698 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Spookyaki and Jon698: Would you like to submit an image with this nomination?--Launchballer 19:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The image in the infobox can be used since it is public domain. Jon698 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I added it. This would make an excellent Juneteenth hook, but I'll let a promoter make that decision since that's well over six weeks away.--Launchballer 19:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think if I were to select an image, it would be that one or this one, since the statue depicts Parks sitting on the bus. Neither would be a bad choice, I think. Spookyaki (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry, as for Juneteenth, that sounds fine. At some point, I'm planning to submit this article for FA, so I'm not entirely sure how the timelines will line up, however. Spookyaki (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It has been brought up in the Peer Review for this page that the PD status for the selected image may by questionable, so may be better do use a different image. Spookyaki (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest organising a crop of File:President Bill Clinton presents Rosa Parks with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the Oval Office.jpg; the rest are side profiles.--Launchballer 13:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me! Spookyaki (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Assuming we've got the licensing resolved, I like File:Rosaparks.jpg the best, but I'd take a closer crop. I know that's King in the background, but for the purpose of a Parks biography, that's just a distraction. The photos of sculptures probably won't pass copyright review. And the one with Clinton is a strange perspective, not to mention that a contemporary photo would be much better. I agree with running this on Juneteenth. RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not resolved, unfortunately. It seems like the photo is not PD and maybe not even fair use (though I've tried my best to argue for the latter). I guess maybe the next next next best photo that I am pretty sure is PD would be this one. Spookyaki (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Spookyaki, Jon698, and RoySmith: The prep set for 19 June is now the bottom set, have we decided on an image?--Launchballer 09:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer:Since it's looking increasingly likely that the original picture is copyrighted, I think this image is probably the best alternative at this moment. Caption would be "Rosa Parks in 1956". Spookyaki (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Rosa Parks in 1956

Peer review

Rosa Parks

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in promoting it to FA. I don't think I have the time to go through the process right now, but am interested to hear people's thoughts, as I have never promoted an article to FA before. Would particularly appreciate feedback about any more obscure MOS stuff and prose. Thank you!

Thanks, Spookyaki (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith

• File:Rosaparks.jpg needs better documentation of its PD status. I searched archive.gov for "306-PSD-65-1882" and couldn't find anything. The fact that it is marked "unknown author" casts doubt on the claim; typically US Government photos come with extensive documentation including the name of the photographer.
  • Interesting... It seems like there was a discussion about this photo here. Unfortunately I don't think it illuminates much about the photo's status. I could ask around on the Commons Village Pump, as assessing images isn't really my forte. Spookyaki (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
    • The image has a public domain explanation at its upload page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• File:Rosaparks policereport.jpg appears to be a report from Montgomery city police officer, not a "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". Same with File:Rosaparks fingerprints.jpg, File:Rosaparks policereport2.jpg
  • That does seem to be the case. For now, I think I will just remove them from the article, since there are other pictures depicting aspects of the arrest(s). Spookyaki (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've returned the long-term images and captions. I would think police reports would be public property, the same as other government records. The report, and its inclusion here, are important historical documents. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Am currently checking what their status is on NARA. The fingerprint document does seem to be explicitly marked as "unrestricted" use. Will see if I can find anything about the reports. You are right, it would be preferable to keep them if possible. Spookyaki (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, use is marked as "unrestricted" on NARA. I believe it may also be a federal document, as it was prepared for a U.S. (Federal) District Court. I am unsure how that should be marked on the image's page, however. Spookyaki (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Alabama and other southern states began implementing segregationist policies during the 1870s and 1880s I recognize those dates as being shortly after the American Civil War non-Americans probably won't, so provide a little context here.
• with the Ku Klux Klan intensifying its activity in Pine Level just in Pine Level, or more generally in Alabama (and elsewhere in the deep south).
• In December 1943, was elected secretary of the chapter she was elected?
• ... she accepted the role, considered a woman's position at the time How about "... she accepted the role (which was considered a woman's position at the time)" to avoid the ambiguity that "considered" might be "the role was considered" or "she considered".
• Blake then called his supervisor, who advised him to call the police In these pre-mobile phone days, that presumably meant getting off the bus to find a public phone. Or were the busses equipped with radios? It's not critical, but if we know which, it would be interesting to say.
• Link Gradualism. More generally, I suggest reviewing the entire article for additional wikilinks that would be useful to add. I've seen a few.
• Link RNA 11 to Imari Obadele?
• She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bill Clinton in 1996,[164] the highest award a civilian can receive from the United States executive branch. that's worded oddly; it sounds like Bill Clinton is an award.
• The bus where Parks refused to move "where" -> "on which"
• Regarding the In popular culture section, be aware that some people frown upon these. I think what you've got is OK, but be prepared for some possible pushback at FAC, and read WP:POPCULTURE for background.
• I suspect you're into WP:OVERCAT territory.

Overall, I think this is excellent. Most of my comments above are nits, but make sure you've got the image licensing nailed down before FAC because people will obsess over that. RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for your review! I've made some adjustments to the article based on your feedback. Right now I am finding the image licensing discussions somewhat discouraging, but I understand it's part of the process. Not a lot that can be done. Spookyaki (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Peer review comments from Noleander

• I thought this article looked familiar ... I did the GA review a month ago. No problem, I'll go a bit deeper this time.
  • Ah, I thought that's why you asked for the review exchange lol. Well, thanks for the review in any case!

• Lead section has five paragraphs; there used to be a rule that limited it to four (rule is gone now); but some FA reviewers may be fond of the old rule; so better to trim to four

• Lead: final sentence of next to last paragraph After Parks's death on October 24, 2005, she was honored ... would probably be better merged with the final paragraph, so all post-death events are in one paragraph.

• Wording ... numerous Black Montgomerians had engaged in similar acts of resistance against segregated public transportation. However, after Parks's arrest ... Note sure "however" is best there, because the 2nd sentence does not contradict the 1st sentence. Suggest eliminate "However", or replace with softer word.
  • I actually think the original wording worked fine. The contrast being made is that before this event, nothing much came of the individual acts of resistance, however after this event, things were taken to the next level by filing the test case. RoySmith (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Scottsboro case: The Supreme Court of the United States ultimately overturned the Scottsboro Boys' convictions in Powell v. Alabama, citing insufficient legal representation. They were released in 1950. That wording will mislead the reader; those cases had a very complicated legal history, and although the SCOTUS did overturn a set of convictions, they were re-tried and most were sentenced to prison: one or two were sentenced to death. Probably best to not go into too much detail in this article, since any 1 or 2 sentence summary of the convictions will fall short.

• Intro sentence(s)? in the "Arrest and bus boycott" section, it jumps immediately into sub-sections. Some readers will benefit from a couple of sentences summarizing the totality of the section.
  • Not entirely sure what you mean here. What sort of information should I include?
    • @Spookyaki: There is a section named "Arrest and bus boycott" , and under it are several subsections ... the first of which is a subsection named "Montgomery buses: law and prevailing customs". I'm suggesting adding 1 or 2 sentences immediately before the first subsection (before "Montgomery buses: law and prevailing customs") that gives the reader a hint of things to come: tells the reader what the "Arrest and bus boycott" covers. This is not at all required by WP MOS or FA; just a personal perference of mine. Many FA articles do not have such "intro" sentences. Noleander (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Photo contrast could be a lot better: File:Rosaparks policereport.jpg The wording in that document is a bit hard to read. For FA, it deserves a crisper image. WP has some volunteers that can heighten contrast if you don't have time. You'll probably have to upload the new version to a new file name, since only the original uploader can overwrite.

• Link According to biographer Douglas G. Brinkley, Parks's refusal ... link author at Douglas G. Brinkley

• Author link: down in Sources section, for Douglas Brinkley book: use "author-link" tag in the source template:

 | author-link=Douglas G. Brinkley

• Other author links: For FA, you'll want "author-link" tags for all authors in Sources section that have WP articles. Same tag as mentioned above.

• Pages: p vs pp: in FA they are pretty picky, so p. 50; 61. will be an issue. multiple pages require "pp"; single pages require "p" Ditto p. 135-138.

• "Further reading" section : there are three items there; Some FA reviewers think that is a sign of an un-tidy article, because it makes the bottom portion of the article ugly & cluttered. Also, they reason: If the items are important, they would have been used in a citation (and would then be in the Sources section); Otherwise: the items should not be listed at all because (a) user can find them thru the other "library" links etc; (b) why should WP play favorites by selecting a few to display? Suggest removing the section unless compelling reason to keep those particular items.

• Author link for citations: Same as for "Sources" ... individual citations should have author links (altough not required by MOS, if you use one author-link, then all available shoudl be provided). Example: Julie Novkov is available for cite #9 "Novkov, Julie (2023). "Segregation (Jim Crow)". Encyclopedia of Alabama. "

• Wording These personal struggles caused her to become removed from the civil rights movement .. That makes it sound like management of the movement kicked her out. I presume the intended meaning is more like These personal struggles caused her to gradually withdraw from the civil rights movement. or These personal struggles caused her reduce her participation in the civil rights movement.

• @Spookyaki: That's all I got. I think if you address these issues (and the ones above from RoySmith) this article will go thru FA with no problem. Note that some of my issues listed above are optional suggestions. Good luck! Noleander (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

References to Rosa Parks: A Life in American History, by Darryl Mace (2021) seem to be wrong

"She was initially "[not] very interested in him" because of "some unhappy romantic experiences"[a]" - references page 27, wrong page, the right page would be 36.

"Rosa was introduced to her future husband, Raymond Parks, by a mutual friend.[20]" - references page 52, wrong page, the right page would be 37.

"However, Raymond eventually persuaded Rosa to ride with him in his car. At the time, automobile ownership was rare among Black men in Alabama.[23]" - references pages 22-23, again, wrong page, the right page would be 37.

The mentioned pages are all over the place. AFAIK, it is not that the information is wrong, just the pages being swapped. I suggest a revision of the references here... Manoliu1001 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. Some of these issues might come from the fact that I was working with a PDF copy where the page numbers are offset somewhat by the front matter/introductory material (though that doesn't account for all of it; maybe I missed some stuff copy-pasting the sfn templates). I'll do a review of the page numbers tomorrow. Spookyaki (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually just went ahead and did it tonight. I think they all should be fixed. Let me know if you spot any more errors. Spookyaki (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Article history?

I was a little surprised to see this article as the lede in today's DYK, even given the clear connection to the Juneteenth theme connected to the other articles on the Main Page, since it ran as the Main Page FA back on December 1, 2005, the 50th anniversary of her arrest, as part of a wide commemoration of that event online and off. I remember that date very well.

Yet the current article history gives no mention of this, just its recent promotion to GA. So I'm curious: When was it defeatured? Why? And why is there no record of this in the article history? It isn't hard to find the article's FAC? Or its FARC, which indicates that it was defeatured in 2012.

Certainly it would be nice if it were restored to featured status, and I think whoever would be working on that might like to see those past discussions. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! Am hoping to (re-)nominate the article for FA, but was not aware of its history. I think I've added the FAC and FARC to the article history, though this is not a template I've ever touched before, so it's possible I might have made some mistakes. Let me know if you spot any issues. Spookyaki (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

What to do about the picture?

I see there's a lot of activity going on concerning the picture on this article. I need to go to bed because I have to catch an early flight tomorrow, and will be out of town for the next week, but I think interested parties should probably discuss what our best options are here. For context, see deletion discussions here and here. Pinging @JayCubby, @Randy Kryn, @RoySmith, and @Yagiv. Some questions I have:

1. Is there a way to make the image more fair use compliant, as Yagiv attempted to do?
2. In the event that the image does need to be deleted, what are some alternatives for the article portrait? Would we prefer the fingerprinting image (potentially confusing context, unclear image of Parks's face) or this image (clearer view of the face, but potentially misleading concerning Parks's age at the time of her refusal to move) or some other image?

Unfortunately, I cannot participate in this discussion. Spookyaki (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I usually rely on @Nikkimaria when it comes to questions of image licensing. RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the present image in the infobox (per discussion at the deletion nomination). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)