Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RJaguar3 (talk · contribs) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the next couple of days. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference check and WP:WTW issues are based on a review of this revision. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Some grammar/spelling errors that need to be corrected: "which is desicribed Section 4(b)" in paragraph 3 of the lede should be "which is described in Section 4(b)"; "voter roles" in paragraph 5 of the "Background" section should be "voter rolls"; "Malcom X" is misspelled (paragraph 8 of "Background" section); "southern" should be capitalized in the last paragraph of "Legislative History: Original Bill: Senate", as it refers to the U.S. region; "en mass" in the "Impact" section, paragraph 3, should be "en masse"; "the Supreme Court upheld the provision Oregon v. Mitchell" should be "the Supreme Court upheld the provision in Oregon v. Mitchell";. The constitutional citation is usually not written "Article 1, Section III" ("Legislative History: Original Bill: Senate", paragraph 5); it should be written "Article I, section 3" (see this page on how to cite constitutions in Bluebook). Also, the terms "disfranchisement" and "disenfranchisement" appear to be used interchangeably; it may be better to stick with one term, the same holds for "black" and "African American". Also, in one of the case citations, the footnote appears between the case caption and the year, while the others have the date after the year.

    Done - also fixed "southern" elsewhere as appropriate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

   See #Other notes.

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

   All are good except for WP:WTW; see #Criterion 1(b)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   This criterion is satisfied

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   See #Reference spot-check (Criterion 2(b))

   C. No original research:

   I did not find original research, but to the extent that I found sources not to support the claims referenced, those are also indicated in #Reference spot-check (Criterion 2(b))

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Most major aspects are covered by the article. Whether or not the article includes information about the VRAA of 2014, this criterion is passed.

   B. Focused:

   84 kilobytes of readable prose, according to prosesize.js. I don't think the article gets bogged down in excessive detail, so this is fine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here, especially given the topic of the article which can result in politically and racially charged discussion.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold to allow the issues to be addressed.

I will continue the review after I get some of the books used as references in the article (which should be by this weekend). RJaguar3 | u | t 15:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you need help with accessing sources, let me know and I'll see what I can do. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Update

First of all, I would like to apologize for not getting the references checked in a timely manner. I think all of the books are in my local library, but I haven't had the chance to sit down and go through them. I should get this done today or tomorrow.

Second, the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 was introduced this week. I do not know whether you want to update the article to reflect the VRAA before I review it or not; it is your call. If you don't want to review update it, I will still mark it as covering the major aspects of the article (criterion 3a) (see WP:GA?).

Thank you for your patience. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@RJaguar3: Thanks for the update and for your persistence in reviewing the article; I understand getting access to offline sources can be time consuming. I did see the VRAA of 2014 was introduced this week, but I haven't determined how best to integrate that fact into the article yet, so I may hold off a while longer (and it probably will only get a sentence or two tops until it starts to work its way through the legislative process). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi RJaguar3, I was wondering if you've had any luck tracking down the offline sources over the past couple of weeks? Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Prototime, I have finished the review and am placing the article on hold. Thanks again for your patience and your hard work in developing this important article; you can go ahead and ping me once you have addressed the issues. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough comments, RJaguar! This is fantastic feedback and well worth the wait. I especially appreciate you taking the time to point out ways to fix or enhance the article even though not required by the GA criteria. I will begin addressing the issues tomorrow. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One further note: I will work through what I can during the weekdays, but I have a loaded schedule this week, so I probably won't have time to address most of the issues until this weekend. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@RJaguar3: I understand the 7-day hold period is about to expire, and I haven't quite finished addressing everything you've pointed out. But I am not far from completing things, and I'm confident that I can address all of the remaining issues this week. Would you be able to extend the hold period for an additional 7 days? I'd greatly appreciate it. And thanks again for the thorough review. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that is not a problem. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

RJaguar3, I believe I have addressed all of the outstanding issues. I'm happy to make any clarifications or address any further issues. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dead-link notes

(these do not need to be fixed under WP:GA?, but these are provided for reference) [7] http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/123/november09/Leading_Case_6597.php (link to PDF on target page is broken)

 Done - I had to toy around with the URL, but I figured out the PDF's address and included it in the cite. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Criterion 1(b)

Location in article	Quote	Comments
Introduction, paragraph 1	"It is widely considered one of the most effective pieces of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the United States."	This is WP:WEASEL as written. However, it is referring to a source saying that "The Voting Rights Act itself has been called the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by Congress." I would suggest adding in-text attribution to the United States Department of Justice: "According to the United States Department of Justice, the Voting Rights Act..."
Background, paragraph 5	"local election officials, who 'lost' records"	WP:SCAREQUOTES. I note that [18] (the source on which the paragraph is based) also uses scarequotes, suggesting that registrars pretended to lose records to hinder cases. Perhaps explicitly stating this instead is better? Alternatively, you could quote [18] directly, in which case WP:SCAREQUOTES does not apply.
Background, paragraph 8	"He gave a militant speech in which he noted that other civil rights leaders did not believe in King's nonviolent approach"	WP:SAY. Original quote (as printed in [24], p. 262) reads "the white people should thank Dr. King for holding people in check, for there are other [black leaders] who do not believe in these [nonviolent] measures."

 Done with all three. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference spot-check (Criterion 2(b))

Location in article	Quote	Comments
Introduction, paragraph 1	"Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections."	This is not likely to be challenged (and is discussed in the body of the article), so no action is needed on this sentence to pass GA. I will note that [8] only lists four amendments (omitting 1992). [9] does not mention amendments. Noted. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Introduction, paragraph 3	"The most litigated special provision is Section 5"	I couldn't find the statistic in the citation.  Done I removed that phrase. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Background, paragraph 1	"As initially ratified, the United States Constitution granted each state complete discretion to determine voting qualifications for its residents"	Possible original research; can you find a secondary source for this? I would suggest [23], p. 50, which I found while reference-checking.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Background, paragraph 7	"Following the 1964 elections, civil rights organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) worked to push for the passage of stronger federal legislation that would protect the voting rights of racial minorities despite the defiance of local officials."	I couldn't find this in [24], p. 258. I changed the page reference to 254-255, and replaced "federal legislation" with "federal action" to be more accurate. The sentence has no direct equivalent in [24], but its components are supported by page 254, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph (timing after 1964 elections); page 255, the first two complete sentences on the page (SNCC pushing for federal intervention); and page 255, the fourth paragraph (discussing King's plans for SCLC to push for federal intervention). If the sentence still requires more direct attribution, I'll see what else I can find. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC) No, that's fine for sourcing. I was a bit thrown off because the source mentioned King and not the SCLC, but the sentences you mentioned do support the text. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Background, paragraph 8	"'Letter From A Selma Jail', appeared in the New York Times."	Not GA-necessary, but I note this appears at the bottom of p. 262 in my copy of [24], not p. 263.  Done - It was actually 262 in mine as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 1	"the party could overcome a filibuster by a two-thirds vote if it remained united."	This is misleading. [23] makes no mention (I could find) of the possibility of overcoming a filibuster with Democrats alone. Indeed, as the rest of the paragraph illustrates, Republicans were approached to support the bill to prevent a Southern Democrat filibuster.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 1	"After Mansfield and Dirksen introduced the legislation, 64 Senators agreed to cosponsor it."	This is unclear whether the VRA had 64 sponsors including Mansfield and Dirksen or 66 sponsors (Mansfield, Dirksen, and 64 others). [23] is not clear either; it states "Mansfield had hoped for at least fifty cosponsors, so he was pleased when sixty-four senators joined them [...] almost enough to invoke cloture" (p. 150).  Done Looking at it now, I believe the statement "sixty-four senators joined them" (with the "them" clearly referring to Mansfield and Dirksen in context) indicates that it was 64 Senators in addition to Dirksen and Mansfield. To reflect that, I've added the words "with them" to the sentence in the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 2	first sentence	[18], p. 519 (and the first part of p. 520) is a reprint of South Carolina v. Katzenbach. To the extent you want to use the opinion as a source, it may be better to cite directly to the Supreme Court opinion. (not GA-necessary)  Done Thanks. Katzenbach itself wasn't really a necessary source for that statement, which is mostly attributed to the bottom of page 520 in the book, so I simply removed "519" from the citation's page range. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 3	"Additionally, the bill included a "bail in" provision, under which federal courts could subject discriminatory non-covered jurisdictions to remedies contained in the special provisions."	I couldn't find a reference to bail-in (other than reopening a bailout judgment) in reference [27].  Done I replaced that citation with a citation to Section 3(c) of Public Law 89-110 (the original VRA, before amended) to show that the bail-in provision existed in the original legislation, and for a secondary source to explain that provision in terms of "bail-in", I cited to Crum's article on bail-in. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 5	"Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) retorted that the bill would lead to 'tyranny and despotism'"	[23] (p. 154) says "[Southern die-hards] insisted that the bill, in Senator Strom Thurmond's words, would lead to 'despotism and tyranny'", the reverse order of the quote in the article.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 5	"Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) argued that the bill was unconstitutional because it deprived states of their right under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to establish voting qualifications."	[23] (p. 155) refers to "Article 1, Section 2", not Section 3.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 5	"45 Democrats and 22 Republicans voting against it"	[23] (p. 156) says "Forty-two Democrats (including five southerners) voted no, and Dirksen was able to deliver twenty-two Republicans to join them."  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Senate, paragraph 6	"only Senators representing Southern states voted against it"	Not GA-necessary, but I note that the statement is sourced to [23] p. 161 in my version, not p. 160.  Done That is actually true in my version as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Original bill: Conference committee	"This broke the logjam"	[23] (p. 167) reads "King's declaration broke the logjam", but the paraphrased sentence in the article does not cite [23] as a source.  Done - Also rephrased that a bit to avoid too-close paraphrasing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 1970, paragraph 1	"prior to 1970, covered jurisdictions made only 578 preclearance submissions"	I could not find this statistic in [27], the only source cited in the paragraph. The statistic can be found on page 8, footnote 37 (second sentence). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 1975, paragraph 3	"Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX) successfully led an effort to amend the Voting Rights Act to protect language minorities."	I couldn't find this in [27].  Done Replaced source with Bending Toward Justice, page 211 –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) OK, found it. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 1982, paragraph 3	"The decision had a major effect on voting rights litigation; lower courts overturned many judgments that had been previously entered in favor of plaintiffs, and civil rights organizations dropped many planned cases."	I couldn't find this in [46], p. 149 I slightly rearranged and reworded that sentence, hopefully to better match the information in the source (Armand Derfner). The supporting text in the source is the second paragraph on page 149, which states "The result of the Mobile decision was devastating. Dilution cases came to a virtual standstill; existing cases were overturned and dismissed, while plans for new cases were abandoned." Is the new wording now sufficiently supported by the source? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 1	"Civil rights organizations advocated for the renewal and strengthening of the special provisions."	Probably not likely to be challenged, but I would like to point out that I couldn't find it at the given source and page ([51], p. 206) The part of the source intended to support this phrase is the first sentence of the first full paragraph on p. 206, which reads "Against this backdrop, a broad coalition of civil rights groups, grassroots organizations, and voting rights advocates sought not only to renew the VRA’s expiring provisions, but to strengthen them." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Are we referring to the same source? The first sentence of the first full paragraph on p. 206 in Tucker, "Enfranchising Language Minority Citizens: The Bilingual Election Provisions of the Voting Rights Act", as found in the article's hyperlink says "The 1965 Act focused primarily on remedying voting discrimination against African Americans in the South." Also, I just noticed in checking that there's a problem with the formatting of the name in the reference: it should read "Tucker, James Thomas", and the year listed in the PDF is 2006 (though this may be moot if the paper linked is not the paper you are citing). No objection to the sourcing if I can find the paragraph you quoted above. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC) I figured out the problem; the article cites multiple articles by Tucker, and two of them shared the same reference name, so one of the references was accidentally replaced by the other. I've fixed that now, so this issue and the next two issues should be properly sourced now. I also fixed the name and date on the other source, thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you for finding and fixing the problem. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 1	"Furthermore, conservatives noted that the primary beneficiaries of the special provisions were African Americans, who overwhelmingly and increasingly voted for Democratic Party candidates."	Again, I could not find this in [51], p. 207. The first full paragraph on page 207 of the source is intended to support this sentence. The first part of the sentence is meant to be supported by the first two sentences of that paragraph in the source, which say "Many conservatives criticized the special provisions of the Act for benefiting the Democratic Party. There was some evidence to support their conclusion. Black voters were the primary beneficiaries of the 1965 Act, with most southern states covered by Section 5 of the Act to prevent discrimination against them." The source then goes on to discuss African American voting trends in presidential races, stating that most African American voters have voted for Democratic candidates (support for using the word "overwhelmingly") and that Bush received less African American votes than Republicans before him (support for using the word "increasingly"). Is this sufficient attribution, or should I look for additional support? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) We are probably using different sources. See above. No objection if I can find the paragraph in the source. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Should be properly sourced now, per above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 1	"However, Republicans were receiving increasing support from some language minority groups, particularly Hispanics and Asian Americans, and they did not wish to risk losing that support by refusing to reauthorize the special provisions"	Could not find this in [51], p. 208 The parts of the source intended to support this sentence are located in the first two full paragraphs on page 208 of the source. In particular, the mention of increasing Republican support from Asian Americans is meant to be supported by the first two sentences, and the last sentence, of the first full paragraph in the source, which say "On the other hand, Republicans had made substantial inroads among other language minority voters. In the 2004 election, estimates of support for President Bush among the 2.7 million Asian voters ranged from one estimate of twenty-four percent to forty-four percent in the NEP." and "Neither party could afford to ignore the growing political power of Asian voters ..." The mention of increasing Republican support from Hispanics is meant to be supported by the second full paragraph, such as the first sentence: "Republican efforts to win the rapidly increasing Latino vote also paid dividends." The idea that Republicans did not wish to alienate Hispanic and Asian-American voters by refusing to reauthorize the special provisions is supported by the last sentence of the second full paragraph in the source: "If Republicans wanted to continue to win over Asian and Latino voters, it seemed apparent they would have to support reauthorization." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Again, we probably are using different sources. See above. No objection if I can find the paragraph you are quoting. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Should be properly sourced now, per above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 3	"One group of legislators, led by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R–GA), argued that the reauthorization unfairly targeted certain jurisdictions and continued to punish and stigmatize jurisdictions for long-past discrimination."	There is no source for this sentence. I tried looking at [55], the source for the following sentence, but Westmoreland was not there.  Done I added two sources - a NYT article discusses Lynn's views, and a USA Today article also discussing Lynn's views and characterizing him as an anti-renewal "leader". I did trim some of the text concerning "punish and stigmatize", as that particular wording wasn't used in either of the sources. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Amendments: 2006, paragraph 4	"However, in an unprecedented event for a bill that passed unanimously"	I couldn't find any mention at p. 178 of [52]. Perhaps it is implied by pp. 186 to 189, which supports the next passage. The sentence on p. 178 of the source intended to support this phrase is near the bottom of the page; it reads "Never before in American history, however, has a Senate committee that unanimously voted in favor of a law later published a postenactment committee report that was supported only by members of one party." I did rearrange and reword the text a bit to better indicate that page 178 only refers to the fact that the unprecedented aspect was that the bill passed unanimously out of committee but had only members of one political party sign the committee report. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC) OK. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws, paragraph 1	"The Supreme Court has allowed private plaintiffs to sue to enforce this prohibition"	There is a link to the published version of [59] at http://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol44p113.pdf. No action is required on this for GA status, though.  Done Noted and changed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: General prohibition of discriminatory voting laws, paragraph 9	"A plurality of the justices said that requiring such proof would violate Congress's intent to make Section 2 a "results" test, but Justice White maintained that the proof was necessary to show that the election scheme resulted in racial discrimination."	The citation is to [79], pp. 355-357. Did you mean pp. 555-557?  Done Indeed I did; fixed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Note c	"The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that challenges to majority-vote requirements under Section 2 are not cognizable, while the Eastern District of Arkansas held the opposite."	In the citation, did you mean [18], pp. 752-753?  Done Yes, thanks for catching that. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Specific prohibitions, paragraph 2	"Section 11(d) prohibits voting twice in a federal election."	Section 11(d) as enacted reads "Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing officer knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." Are you referring to section 11(e) (42 USC 1973i(e))?  Done Yep... probably a slip of the finger when typing. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 3	"several of them, such as New Mexico, have since had their bail-in status lifted"	I couldn't find a clear statement about New Mexico's bail-in status being lifted in [95]. The closest I could find was that New Mexico entered into a consent decree in 1984 requiring preclearance for a decade, and the Attorney General objected to its 1991 redistricting.  Done Yes, I can see how that might be based on too much of an interpretation of the source. I;ve deleted that quote. In the preceding paragraph, I've added text concerning New Mexico that it was ordered into bail-in for 10 years, but left it open as to whether the bail-in actually expired at that time, since the source doesn't address whether the original order was ever modified. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) New Mexico was bailed in based on a consent order in December 1984, not 1990. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 3	"As of 2013, 17 jurisdictions remained subject to bail-in."	There are 18 jurisdictions listed on 1a-3a under the title "Jurisdictions That Have Been Ordered by a District Court to Comply With Preclearance Requirement Pursuant to Bail-in Mechanism in Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act". There is no indication in the brief that all 18 jurisdictions remained subject to preclearance as of 2013.  Done I also added a brief mention that Evergreen, Alabama was bailed in last month. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 3	"additional jurisdictions may be bailed in."	Source [98] is hosted on Yahoo! News, not NPR, as stated in the reference. (Not GA-necessary to fix this.)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: General provisions: Bail in, paragraph 4	"Under this provision, the District Court for DC may certify a non-covered jurisdiction to receive federal observers if the court determines that the jurisdiction violated the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments."	According to [100], any federal court is allowed to appoint observers, not just the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Coverage formula, paragraph 2	"The types of jurisdictions that the coverage formula applies to include states and "political subdivisions" of states, which includes local governments that register people to vote (usually counties)."	I could only find this alluded to in [94]; can you find a better (more directly stated) source for this definition?  Done I've replaced that with a sourced quote from the relevant provision in the VRA. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Reference [106] (cited in note d)	"Hathorn v. Lavorn"	The correct case name (as appears in [18]) is Hathorn v. Lovorn  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"By 2006, the federal examiner provision was used solely as a means to appoint federal observers."	The page in [100] is 239, not 238 (not GA-necessary).  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"The goal of the federal observer provision is to facilitate minority voter participation by deterring and documenting instances of discriminatory conduct in the election process, such as denying qualified minority persons the ability to cast a ballot, intimidation or harassment voters on election day, or improper vote counting"	Check the page number. (not GA-necessary)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"Since 1965, the Attorney General has certified 164 jurisdictions to receive federal observers, including 11 states and 153 local governments."	I don't think this correctly interprets [116]. The 11 states mentioned appear to be states where at least one county was certified for federal observers, not a list of states that have been certified for federal observers in their entirety. It would be more accurate to say "The Attorney General has certified 153 counties in 11 states to receive federal observers."  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) The article still refers to a total of 164, which is misleading and redundant. I would simply remove it. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Federal examiners and observers, paragraph 3	"Given time and resource constraints, federal observers are not appointed to every certified jurisdiction for every election."	The page number is wrong; the sentence can be sourced by p. 230 (not GA-necessary)  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Bail out, paragraph 4	"Between this date and 2013, 196 jurisdictions bailed out of coverage through 38 bailout actions; in each instance, the Attorney General consented to the bailout request."	Not GA-necessary, but the {{rp}} template appears to have gotten caught in the reference.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Bail out, paragraph 4	"Between 1984 and 2009, all jurisdictions that bailed out were located in Virginia."	For accuracy, this sentence should use August 5, 1984 (the date of the amendment) as the starting date, as three non-Virginia jurisdictions bailed-out in 1984 before August.  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Provisions: Special provisions: Bilingual election requirements, list of elements after paragraph 2	"A single language minority is present that has an English illiteracy rate higher than the national average; and [e]ither: The number of 'limited-English proficient' members of the language minority group is at least 10,000, or it comprises at least 5% of the jurisdiction's population..."	This should be rewritten to refer to voting-age citizens as per the source, [94].  Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Impact, paragraph 2	"Starting in the 1970s, the Attorney General commonly interposed Section 5 preclearance objections to dilutive annexations, redistricting plans, and election methods such as at-large election systems, runoff election requirements, and prohibitions on bullet voting. In total, 81% (2,541) of precleareance objections made between 1965 and 2006 were based on vote dilution grounds"	The page number does not exist in [108]. The first sentence can be sourced to pp. 105-106. Where did you find the statistic cited in the second sentence?  Done It's in the same source (Posner), though the page numbers were messed up. I fixed them; the first sentence is now associated with pp. 105-106, and the second sentence is sourced to p. 102. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) OK. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Impact, paragraph 3	"with the Republican Party controlling most of Southern politics."	Not GA-necessary, as the statement is unlikely to be challenged, but I couldn't find this in [23] at p. 203. The sentences intended to support this phrase on p. 203 of the source are "Johnson had worried that the Voting Rights Act would destroy the Democrats’ control of the South, and the Republicans had begun to make inroads there as early as 1968. By the mid- to late 1990s, excepting southern Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the South would belong to the Republicans for the rest of the twentieth century and beyond." It might not be quite the cleanest support, but I do agree with you that the phrase is pretty unlikely to be challenged anyway. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) OK. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Other notes

• "Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the Act's 'coverage formula', which is described Section 4(b)": "described" still needs to be changed to "described in"

   Done - and swapped "described" with "prescribed", as I figure that's more accurate considering it's a legal requirement. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• "new jurisdictions may come into coverage while others may have their coverage termination": "termination" should be "terminated"

   Done –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• bail-in and bail-out terminology (especially hyphenation) needs to be consistent.

   Done I made some changes and I think I've fixed this now, but feel free to let me know if you think it's incorrect. This is what I've done:

  Concerning "bailout", when used as a noun or adjective (e.g., "bailout procedure"), I've kept it as one word, since "bailout" is a common noun.source When used as a verb, I've spelled it out as two words (e.g., "allow a local government to bail out of coverage"). source And I've dropped the hyphen entirely, except where the term is being used as an adjective in the past tense (e.g., "bailed-out jurisdiction"), since it is a compound adjective

  Concerning "bail in", there is no single-word noun like there is for "bailout", so to indicate its status as a singular concept when using it as a noun or adjective, I've spelled it with the hyphen "bail-in". Where used as a verb, I've dropped the hyphen (analogous to the verb "bail out"). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some references use {{rp}}; others put the page number in the reference footnote. Consistency in this would improve the article.

 Done - All references should now use {{rp}}. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Listed

All issues have been fixed, so I am listing this article as a good article. Congratulations to Prototime and all the other contributors for their efforts in developing and improving the article, and I hope to see this article appear on the main page as a featured article in the future. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you, RJaguar3! I am deeply appreciative of your dedication in reviewing this article. Thank you for taking the time to find the offline and paywall sources and in offering such a comprehensive review. It's been a pleasure working with you! I, too, hope to see this article appear on the main page in the future. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)