Talk:Eugenics in Minnesota

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Cedar Tree (talk · contribs) 04:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written generally, will do deeper check later. The lead should not have citations, and further should only contain material in the body. There is material only in the lead.

Comments:

• Bureau for the Feebleminded and Epileptic - if it's the proper name of the organization epileptic is weird to link
• "For a decision to be made, two physicians were to be present."
• "made decision on which children to commit to institutions" grammatically incorrect
• "because of inability" an inability?
• the first usage of racial segregation should be linked, right now it's the second
• "were to be", weird tense, flows awkwardly from prior sentence
• "Coffman believed that racial segregation and a racial hierarchy was natural. He also believed that this "natural order" should be maintained by the control of reproduction. He believed that white, Protestant people should be allowed to reproduce, while people of color, Jewish, and Catholic people, as well as those with disabilities should have their reproduction controlled." this feels repetitive
• "He tested the IQs of thousands of Minnesotan students." did he do it personally or did he order/supervise it? this whole paragraph feels repetitive
• "1,802 people were placed under state guardianship. 27 people were being committed every month." maybe change to, with 27 people being committed every month?
• "In many cases, IQ tests were used as evidence to wrongfully send whole families into state guardianship, the results of later tests proved that they were not "feebleminded"." the joining of these two sentences is awkward. maybe but the results of later tests, or just split into two sentences
• "Eugenics was seen as a way to reduce the overpopulation problem in state institutions and most of the survivors were discharged three months after operations were performed on them." what kind of operations?

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some close paraphrasing issues, see here. Citation 36, 43 and 44 are not reliable. Haven't checked all.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems to be a general overview, however it seems too focused on things very extraneous to the article topic. This article has some very weird inclusions that makes me question its focus. Why is there an entire section on trump and racehorse theory when this has no relation to Minnesota other than the fact he gave a speech there? The in america section's sources have no relation to Minnesota, while enough do to prove notability most of the sources here do not which is a major issue.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks good

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Looks good

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other comments

Dr. Arthur C. Rogers

per MOS:DOCTOR, Dr. should be removed

Issues need addressing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What exactly did you want fixed with the broad in coverage section? Cedar Tree 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It's unfocused. A substantial portion of the article doesn't have to do with Minnesota, or eugenics. That's the biggest problem here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think that I removed most of the things that weren't relevant to Minnesota. Please let me know if there's anything else you think doesn't fit in the article. As for the Donald Trump and Racehorse Theory section, I think that this is relevant because it happened in the state. If you're really against it, I can remove it. :) Cedar Tree 01:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been struggling with suggesting improvements to this article that address the actual problems I have with it. I could further spot check the sources or the writing (which I think has some issues, but not insurmountable), however even if those were improved I believe I would not feel comfortable passing it because my problems with this article are more... structural? In a way that I don't think can be overcome here. This doesn't really feel like a cohesive article on "eugenics in Minnesota", but a bunch of disparate things that while notable, are struggling to form the article as a whole. I'm sorry, but I am going to fail this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.