Talk:LatinoJustice PRLDEF/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   ''The group became known for its part played in redistricting battles, very clumsy, consider rephrasing

   It was typically staffed "typically staffed"?

   ''ASPIRA Need to explain what ASPIRA is, a wikilink is insufficient. Also need to explain why they filed the law suit?

   Also need to explain The lawsuit was the fund's first, and one that led to the ASPIRA Consent Decree rather better.

   PRLDEF has continued to be a key factor in the installation of bilingual education in New York schools. It also brought about the publication of some federal and state forms in Spanish as well as English. Again rather clumsy phrasing.

   ''The same year, the fund teamed with ACORN What is ACORN? needs more than a wikilink.

   ''More commonly, board members were chosen for their wealth or their political connections; "More commonly"?

   ''This reflected that its clients were coming from Ouch - this is not good prose.

   In March 2010, the group urged Governor of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuño to delay by at least six months the effective date of a new birth certificate law, which as of July 2010 invalidates all previously issued birth certificates Mixture of tenses.

   In July 2010, the group joined by a law firm authored an amicus curiae brief filed by several Latino organizations in support of a preliminary injunction against the highly controversial Arizona SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law needs recasting as unintelligible at the moment.

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD

   There are a number of stray sentences that need consolidation.

   The whole reads as a almost random collection of facts strung together in chronological order. Needs to be turned into a smooth narrative. You may need help to get it copy-edited.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced to RS, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'll reserve judgment on that until a thorough copy-edit has been performed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

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):

   Two images used, with appropriate rationales and captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for a thorough line by line copy-edit and for efforts to be made to turn this into smooth flowing reasonably good prose. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

   Nearly there. I would like you consolidate stray sentences and two sentence paragraphs, then we will be good to go. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   Have reorganized and coalesced material accordingly. Only a couple of two-sentence paragraphs left, once dealing with educational efforts that I couldn't fit anywhere else, and one dealing with the recent change in leadership that will expand once some newspaper writes about what effect that change has had on the organization. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

   OK, that is good enough. Thanks for addressing these issues. Listed, congatulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. I have addressed all of your specific wording points and I have also done a general copy-editing run (printing the article out so as to get better visual 'distance' from it). Regarding the lead, I wasn't sure whether your "lead does not fully summarise the article" comment referred to material being introduced in the lead that wasn't in the body or the lead not summarizing all the important aspects of the article. I have corrected the first, but regarding the second, I deliberately kept the lead on the short side, since the article itself is short. But if there are specific items you think are not in the lead that should be, let me know and I'll include them. Regarding the "almost random collection of facts strung together in chronological order" comment, no the facts aren't random (I haven't included anything below a certain level of importance), but yes they are sort of strung together in a sense. That's because there aren't really sources that give a detailed, interpretative history of the organization, and for me to present a "smooth narrative" that did so would likely run afoul of OR, synthesis, etc. So for example I do have a couple of one-sentence paragraphs, because they introduced important points in the group's history but there was nothing else to tie them into thematically. Like all organizations of this kind, they have been predominately occupied with questions of direction and financing, and I think that is borne out by the current article. But if you can point to a couple of places where you think the narrative could be smoothed out, that might give me a better idea of what you are looking for. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2011 (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.