Template:Did you know nominations/National Association of Drug Court Professionals

National Association of Drug Court Professionals

 * ... that after "Very Tough Love" aired on the radio show This American Life, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals stated that 6% of U.S. drug courts don't follow recommended practices?
 * Reviewed: Maryon Pittman Allen
 * Comment: March 7, 2012

Created/expanded by Mgreason (talk). Self nom at 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough at the time of nomination. All three images on the page have fair use rationales. Hook is properly formatted and supported by inline citation.  Article is supported by inline citations.
 * Symbol question.svg Seven of the sources are primary sources. This includes the hooked fact. Only four are independent. Plagiarism check on this source gives me some concerns. This to. --LauraHale (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The close paraphrasing concerns need to be addressed. Article sourcing needs to be improved. --LauraHale (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding close paraphrasing:

source 1 - The first matched phrase is a cited quote from the article. The second and third have been rewritten. The fourth phrase is the full name of the organization. The fifth is the title of an article cited as a source. The sixth phrase has been rewritten. The seventh, eighth and ninth are the names of the institute. Tenth and twelfth are statistics from the organization's website. Eleventh, "the drug court model" is a key concept that is not paraphrased. The remainder are generic phrases, not paraphrased. source 2 - The first matched phrase is a cited quote from the article. The second is the full name of the organization. The third is the title of a article cited as a source. The fourth is the quoted title of a publication. The fifth is not a paraphrase, it is the type of courts that the organization works with. The sixth is the name and title of a federal employee. The seventh is an organization's name. The eighth is the quoted title of a publication. The ninth is the title of a publication. The tenth is the name of an organization. The eleventh is the name of a federal program. The twelfth is a generic phrase. The thirteenth is the name of a publication. The forteenth is the name of a book. The remainder are generic phrases, not paraphrased. Mgrē@sŏn 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Some information in the article is still not cited. Article still relies heavily on primary source website. Sentences like "The NADCP Annual Training Conference gives practical, working knowledge to several thousand professionals in drug and problem-solving courts, and is the biggest training symposium in the United States dealing with crime and substance abuse" read like advertising, especially when sourced to the association.  It would be less problematic if it was sourced to another independent source. The bad press section looks like it is neutral, until you look at the source and see it is again the company. Looking now, don't see the same close paraphrasing concerns... but other issues still there. Google News has several references and these might be useful.  --LauraHale (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg've added several additional references in the sections you identified. Have your concerns been mollified? Mgrē@sŏn  13:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

For me, the article still reads a bit like an advertisement and is not WP:NPOV. A professional organisation claiming what they do is successful in helping people deal with drugs, see these celebrities... LinkedIn is used as a source and not sold on its reliability in this case. A lot of this looks like puffing up the article. Not convinced this would survive an afd because sources like this do not really mention the organisation, but rather ask them for information. Statements like "Supports this initiative" suggest this problem. So yeah, sourcing problems, neutrality problems and an overreliance on primary sources... A second opinion would be really useful here. --LauraHale (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Article needs copyedits (check punctuation around dates, for starters). I agree that this is too much not neutral enough. The second sentence from the lead already suggests this--I don't think that half a lead should be devoted to a claim of greatness. Other sections aren't very neutral either ("Institute") or not well-sourced (references for the claims in "Training" aren't independently sourced). The logos need to go too, IMO. As for the hook, "Bad press" is a decidedly unencyclopedic heading, and I'm not convinced by the hook itself. Why does it matter? If "stated" were replaced by "acknowledged" that'd be something. Sorry, but them's the shakes. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)