Talk:Free Legal Advice Centres

Comments re early version
I tagged this article earlier today as {advert}, and I'm pleased to see that the author has taken some steps to make the tone more encyclopaedic before removing the tag.

I do think more is needed - I realise that this is a non-profit organisation, but still feel it's important that the tone be neutral, and it currently does still sound a little promotional.

There are no references other than two to the website. If other sources could be found, that would help improve the article. I see little point in having multiple references to the official site, I think that stating the home page is sufficient.

There are no links currently to other wikipedia articles, and I think that links to explain the nature of the org would help - perhaps to human rights, Ireland, Legal Aid, Social Welfare, and others.

I think the article needs to explain more clearly, in simple terms, at the beginning, the exact nature of the organisation, before getting into the details.

I hope these comments will help the article improve.

--  Chzz  ►  15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I've created disambiguation pages for Flac and FLAC - both of which used to lead to Free Lossless Audio Codec. --  Chzz  ►  15:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Unfortunately the current version is a copyright violation of many of the pages from the official website. As is, it should be deleted immediately, otherwise it need a complete rewrite using independent reliable sources not just simple cut and pastes from the website. ww2censor (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted almost all the material, which was indeed copyrighted, but the infobox can stay, and I can't tell that the organization isn't notable (although I've given it a notability tag). Let's see if they can help us rewrite this without violating copyright, and give us sources that establish notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better but now it is hardly worth keeping at all. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope it's given a chance. The original author took immediate steps to change the NPOV of the article after my initial flagging. I didn't know that it was a copyvio at that point. I think there's a worthwhile article in here somewhere, if people who know the subject can improve it. --  Chzz  ►  04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)