Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965/GA1

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

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

I will be reviewing this article in the next couple of days. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; 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 &#124; u &#124; 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.
 * ✅ - also fixed "southern" elsewhere as appropriate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * All are good except for WP:WTW; see
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * This criterion is satisfied
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * See
 * 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
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold to allow the issues to be addressed.
 * 1) 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 &#124; u &#124; 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 &#124; u &#124; t 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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, 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)

, 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 &#124; u &#124; 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)

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 &#124; u &#124; t 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

, 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)
 * ✅ - 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)

 * ✅ with all three. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 20 February 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"
 * ✅ - 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"
 * ✅ –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * bail-in and bail-out terminology (especially hyphenation) needs to be consistent.
 * ✅ 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.
 * ✅ - 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 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 &#124; u &#124; 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)