Talk:Center for Class Action Fairness

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Center for Class Action Fairness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk • contribs • count) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   For the most part, the prose is grand. However, when using quotes, you have a tendency to place a comma before opening the quoted text, which is often disruptive to the flow of the sentence. I'd also advise against retaining a capital letter if the quoted text is part of a sentence, as it's visually jarring. You've got a mixture of "dumb" and "smart" quotation marks there (probably an artefact of working in a word processor prior to adding it to the article), they should probably be standardised - it doesn't matter which you go for, but one or the other uniformly is ideal.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Citations are good. Fixed a lot of unspaced ref tags though - just remember to ensure that any closing ref tags are followed by a space before text resumes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope is good.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article seems stable. I see there's a pending case being discussed but I would hardly think its outcome would be controversial enough that the article's stability would be threatened.

6. 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:

   Sole image is commons and is appropriately used. No problems there.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few fixes to be done with how quotations are handled. I'd have sorted it out for you myself but I'm not really sure how you'd prefer to have it done, so I'll let you decide. Shouldn't take much work if you just Ctrl+F the quote marks you want rid of. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah well spotted. I'll try to sort that out shortly.

Howz that, I think I've got em all. If not can you address those outstanding which are problematic? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to go. Going to pass this one. Well done! GRAPPLE X 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit

Might someone update this wildly out of date article? This American Lawyer profile has more up to date statistics and accounts of more important victories than the ones listed here; Ars Technica wrote a nice piece about CCAF, too. We won the Dewey case mentioned in the last paragraph. Reuters; NJLJ; Forbes.

If some is more ambitious than that, there is a large list of sources at http://tedfrank.com/press, including WSJ (reprinted here); Forbes; Litigation Daily; Corporate Counsel; Wall Street Journal; Legal Intelligencer; Forbes; Forbes; WSJ; ABA Journal; Fortune; Reuters; Litigation Daily; Wall Street Journal.

Many thanks. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Same as the other article. Request Edit is not the proper venue to just ask for an article to be updated generally as most of our articles could use updating and expansion. However, if you do not have a conflict of interest, you can update it yourself. You can also offer contnet for consideration or simply improve other articles. However, it's not really helpful to just point out that the article is outdated. CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article focuses too much on CCAF-promotional material; this may need to be reevaluated in the light of how CCAF is portrayed in the sources. The three quoteboxes quoting Ted Frank at length also seem egregious. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A "project of Donors Trust"?

What does that mean? The no-longer-accessible article may say that, but the first reference only says that it was initially funded by Donors Trust. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center for Class Action Fairness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917033157/http://abovethelaw.com/2009/08/ted_frank_interview.php to http://abovethelaw.com/2009/08/ted_frank_interview.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Delisted

A procedural delist as the article is now a redirect. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)