Talk:Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 03:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Will post the review soon. I note this article is a classroom assignment; this is the first time I've encountered one of these. Since I know that for most colleges this is either the exam period or close to when grades close, if you need this review quickly, let me know and I will expedite. –Grondemar 03:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, after reading the pages linked to this article I see that you're the professor and the grading period has already ended. Therefore, ignore most of what I said above. –Grondemar 03:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In general this article looks like it has potential. You will be glad to know that it passed through our plagarism checker without issue. Here are some initial thoughts:


 * This article could use an infobox at the start; I believe Infobox U.S. legislation is the one you should use.
 * The first sentence says the act "was passed"; who passed it? (This may sound like stating the obvious, but someone from outside North America might not realize from the lead that we are talking about an Act of the US Congress.)
 * "Rep. Bill Richardson" should be followed by (D-NM). Similar for "Rep. Rick Lazio", should be (R-NY).
 * "On October 26, 1996, NAHASDA officially became public law." You should state with a citation whether President Clinton signed the bill or let it become law without his signature.
 * There are very few citations in the Summary of the Act section; I will review other legislation articles to see if this is common.
 * The end of the Assistance to Native Hawaiians paragraph has a dangling quotation mark; I didn't remove it since it looks like there might have been a quote around there somewhere. There should probably be a citation at the end of the paragraph.
 * Remember to spell out acronyms at first usage, such as GAO. Wikilinks at first usage would be helpful too.
 * The first paragraph of the Criticisms section definitely needs a citation. In general, Wikipedia frowns on "Criticism" sections since they can indicate that the article is not written from a neutral point of view.  I will need to re-read the article carefully to confirm neutrality.
 * Ref 28 could use more detail; it looks like it got cut off.

I'll try to finish the review by the end of the weekend, hopefully earlier. –Grondemar 04:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on and making such useful comments. I will let the students who worked on this know that there is some active commenting going on. I know one of the students was pretty gung ho, and so I have confidence he will deal with these things. Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this review going to be completed? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten this was still open until I saw it pop up again on my watchlist. To my memory there was very few edits made to address the concerns I listed above.  I will close this out this afternoon if you don't beat me to it, Wizardman. –Grondemar 17:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)