Talk:Minimum Foundation Program

Comment
Cool Article. My only change might be to putting the current legislation and current development pieces closer to the top of the article, like right after the portion that defines what the MFP is and have the history and specific details about how the program works following. That way, people can know why they are reading this article / why they should care.

173.253.150.193 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(This is by Allen BTW. I think I forgot to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.253.150.193 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your writing is very spot on - your grammar and organization is phenomenal. As far as suggestions go I would move your second introductory paragraph, more particularly the information about the 2010-2011 MFP formula, into your section titled Per Student Spending. Also, with this particular topic there are several large dollar amounts and numbers that coincide with various dates - perhaps a simple table added into the page with the year, the MFP formula for that year, and the total money allocated/spent would help make the information a little more user-friendly.

Also, I am not sure if any discussion of the MFP has occurred in the current Extraordinary Special Session on the budget, but, it might be nice to have a recent developments section that would track what is currently happening to the program with so many budget cuts being tossed around.

Your topic is very interesting and you've truly done a great job researching!

Erinfhymel (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Recomendations
I do not feel well rounded enough to do a read review. Here are my recommendations:

I)Add page numbers to reference 1 (Tulane University, n.d.) for each time you use it as a source II) There shouldn't be a space between the full stop and the reference tag III) Get a good friend to look over it for spelling and grammar. (or check out these nice people)

In all its a great article

cheers --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Drive by comment
The lede section should not have any references as it shouldn't introduce new information. Rather, it should summarize the entire article. I suggest moving them down and ensuring the lede properly summarizes the article without introducing new information. Basket of Puppies 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Article edits
Guerillero-- The only abbreviation I saw other than "MFP" was "SPS," but I changed that one. Do I need to use "Minimum Foundation Program" throughout? Most people in Louisiana refer to it as "MFP," but I'm not sure what Wikipedia protocol is on that. The only fragments I saw were part of a list after a colon. Did I miss some? Is the lede now enough of a summary? Do I have too many citations in it? I also didn't see any references that weren't after a full stop. Maybe someone changed them? I didn't have any files, but I will be adding an explanatory video about the actual math of the formula soon. Thanks for the suggestions. Emilyhholden (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it has been three days. Umm. It seems that most of my MOS issues were resolved by AWB. Each time you cite either of the PDFs you need to include the page that that fact come from. That is my only major issue cheers. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)