Talk:Fairness Project/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments
 * " a United States charitable organization" WP:SEAOFBLUE.


 * Infobox uses "organisation", suggest it's made consistent.
 * ✅ - I've bitten my tongue and fingers and opted for organization throughout


 * Other charity articles I've read include the 501(c)(4) status in the prose.
 * ✅ - used to break up the SEAOFBLUE in point 1


 * "state organisations and" ENGVAR once again, suggest you double-check throughout.
 * ✅ - at least in this particular word choice, I'll attempt to check to avoid a split mix of american/english, so it doesn't go more Canadian english


 * Infobox says it was found in DC, but no sign of that in the lead/prose.
 * ✅ - added to history


 * Address is in infobox but not referenced.
 * ✅ - I used the IRS source, but can add a link to the contact page of their site if that's preferable


 * Suggest you could expand the lead a little to cover all the main sections, it's a reasonable length article and could easily sustain a two-para lead.
 * ✅ - I've done this to a degree, but I'm unsure how much to include about the campaigns (as they generally win, it also ends up being somewhat one-sided). Would appreciate you taking a look at it.
 * It looks fine to me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "This led to an increasing number of local initiatives..." sentence not referenced.


 * "., the 2015 minimum wages " I would add "where" after the comma.


 * " mix of difficulties - it was believed that Washington and Maine would prove viable campaigns but that California would pose a greater challenge" spaced en-dash, not hyphen, but why was CA more of a challenge? Any clues?
 * ✅ (Both the dash and the explanation)


 * " by 2020 - a comparable" should be an en-dash again.


 * " their required signatures" any idea how many that was?


 * " requirements 1 day before" 1->one.


 * I note you dislike capitalisation, such as democratic/republican/supreme court etc, is this purposeful?
 * ✅ - I've mostly done this, but was unsure whether a general usage "a state supreme court" - does it still need capitalising? I don't think there's much of a specific reason I've used or not used capitals
 * No, I think you're quite right. It's easy to go capitalisation crazy and MOS can be quite a minefield here... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "State Expanded Medicaid Coverage as of 07 November 2018" should this really be "State-expanded Medicaid coverage as of November 7, 2018"?
 * ✅ - well, avoided with a rephrasing.


 * " campaign budget.[26][25]" refs in numerical order please.


 * " fairly even - with the" spaced en dash instead of spaced hyphen.


 * "of the medicaid expansion was" capital M?
 * ✅ (2 instances)


 * " to date" -> "as of 2019".


 * " aid is unclear.[38][additional citation(s) needed] " needs to be addressed.
 * ✅ - thankfully a more recent secondary source clarified the details


 * "Primarily in reaction to the successful" paragraph is unreferenced.
 * ✅ - I was mentally treating it like a mini lead, as the sources below pertain, but I've added them in


 * Ref 32 showing an error.


 * Check refs for publisher/work issues, e.g. The Washington Times should be italicised a work.
 * ✅ - I'm assuming that the titling of their articles is generally a good call on whether it should be italicised or not


 * Avoid SHOUTING, e.g. PORTLAND PRESS HERALD -> Portland Press Herald.


 * You could refine the NPO category to Category:501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations.

That's it for a quick pass, I'll put the article on hold while we work on these. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - thanks so much for the above. I've acted on everything, I think, but there are 2 areas (marked) where I could use a look at what I've gone for. Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you ref "therefore requiring either standard legislation..."? I'm re-reading now... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've rephrased it, since "standard legislation" was just to mean that a law had to be passed in the state - either by a legislature or (as the whole point of the Fairness Project suggests) by ballot measure. The law needing to be passed is covered (I've just reused the original source since it's in that) and then covered the ballot measure bit as well. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, happy with the article now so passing it to GA, great work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks for everything - over and out.