User talk:Gsrogers

Review of Fair Sentencing Act article
Sure, I'll be happy to review it. Shoot me a message when you are ready for my review. Don't be surprised if other editors jump in and make changes to what you do (It's good to copy your screen before you save, or save frequently, just in case there is a simultaneous edit, so you don't lose work). If you disagree with what another editor does, open a discussion about it on the article's talk page (see WP:CIVIL). Most importantly: Add full citations to WP:Reliable sources to support all the statements that you make (see WP:CITE, giving author, title, date, publisher/city, page number or url). Here is an excellent example for you to look at: Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Here's another: National Industrial Recovery Act. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good start. I made some quick edits, consolidating the identical refs.  If possible, the refs should have both a publication date and an access date.  See WP:CITE.   I also pulled a little more info from other articles.  See if you like it; otherwise modify it.  If you have any questions about content or strategy, leave them on the article's talk page.  If you have technical questions about Wikipedia, leave them on my talk page.  Some ideas for expansion (although I see you said much the same on the article's talk page): I think you could add a lot more about when the bill was originally proposed, and by whom, and what changes it underwent in its path to adoption.  Plus, you need a much fuller description of what the final bill said.  You could also expand the impact section and discuss what more commentators have said about the imact of the Act.  Happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for all your help so far, Ssilvers. I really do appreciate it and am excited about adding to the comprehensiveness of the article. I will certainly use your suggestions as a guide for adding more content. Thanks again. Gsrogers (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to help you learn the ropes, and I'm looking forward to watching the article expand and improve. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know?
Great work with Fair Sentencing Act so far, Gsrogers! Are you going to nominate this for "Did You Know"? You've expanded to more than five times its original size, so it would be eligible if nominated within the next few days. And getting this up on the Main Page would set a great example for other students who are starting to edit articles. I can help with the DYK process, if you like.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Super cool. The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know.  Basically, all need to do is take this code:


 * and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation.  Someone will doublecheck to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.  Once you've come up with a hook, add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of this section of the DYK template talk page.  The code will produce an entry formatted like the others.  After that, just keep an eye on your entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it.  I'll keep an eye out as well.  If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.  Cheers --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and nominated it, because DYK is only for articles created/expanded within the last five days and I wanted to make sure it was up in time. But I encourage you take a look and rewrite the hook as you see fit.  You can follow the progress of it here; sooner or later, someone will review it to see whether it meets the requirements or not.  Cheers --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sage. I do like the current hook you used but I will still continue to think about different possible ones. Gsrogers (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article will appear in the DYK section of the main page tomorrow (Saturday) evening, beginning at 6PM. Congratulations!  I'm looking forward to your next steps.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Couldn't have done it without you! Gsrogers (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Smart move
I see you left a message on the talk page for User:Axios023 soliciting that editor's comments on the article. This is a very smart strategy. There is also a procedure called WP:Peer review where editors can ask the community for comments, but this is usually done much later at the GA or FA level. In the meantime, soliciting comments from editors in the field is a super idea, although you may want to wait, before asking any more peeps until you have added the information to the article that you already know you want to add. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I added an image to the article, but I'm not crazy about it. What do you think?  We don't need to keep it.  I didn't see any that were more helpful....  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not too crazy about it either just because I associate this act with drug possession and not necessarily using/snorting. Maybe we could just put up a picture of crack cocaine? Or two pictures, one of crack and one of powder cocaine? I found pictures of those on the Commons. And thanks for the advice about talking to other editors and an eventual peer review! Gsrogers (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Quite right. I had also considered those two pictures. Not incredibly exciting, but at least they show the two substances under discussion. The additional information that you added today is great, and I look forward to more expansion. I made a few edits, including to reduce the number of bulleted lists, because Wikipedia's manual of style prefers narrative sentences to bullets. I agree that the one bulleted list that I left there is probably best presented that way. You quoted the source saying that the House bill was "Scott's", but does that mean that he was the primary sponsor, that his office wrote it, or what? You can explain the process clearly for the reader, even if the source was a little procedurally vague. As long as the process is obvious and well known, I don't think you need a second ref for that. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fair Sentencing Act
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
Hi Graham, congratulations on having your article featured in the Did You Know section on the Wikipedia front page!!! Very exciting. Great job! On October 10th alone, your article received more than 900 visits! Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Annie! Gsrogers (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that you and Claire are collaborating. That's excellent! I hope more people in your class collaborate and help each other on their articles. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer Edit
Graham, I think the article looks good for the most part. One suggestion I have is that you add a "see also" section to suggest some other articles that might be of use to those reading your article. Another suggestion would be to maybe add a little more about the key players in support and opposition of the law to help the neutrality and comprehensiveness. Overall, try to just keep looking for more sources to add to the content of the article. Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcahlber (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are doing a super job reviewing your classmates' articles and helping to improve them. I hope you stick around on Wikipedia after this class.  You are becoming an excellent WP editor.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

EPA
Hello Graham, I've nominated your article for DYK at Template talk:Did you know. Feel free to suggest a different 'hook' or comment. That is a great article! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate it. Gsrogers (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Actually, that's a well-written and informative article – I should be thanking you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reorganization Plan No. 3
-- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham, CONGRATULATIONS on getting yet another article onto the Did You Know section on the Wikipedia front page! As you probably saw, the work you did on the Reorganization Plan No. 3 article was viewed by a thousand people on November 10th! Great job, and keep it up! Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair Sentencing Act
Hi. Someone add a lot of unreferenced information to the Fair Sentencing Act article. It is possibly WP:OR, and some of it seems to be WP:POV, and must be deleted unless it is referenced. I am guessing that most of it *can* be referenced, if you or someone wants to look into it. In addition, the new references that were added are incomplete, missing info on the author, publisher and date of publication. I added hidden comments in the edit screen text to try to give you some suggestions about what ought to be done. If you can't find references, it would be better to just delete all the unreferenced stuff. Feel free to initiate a conversation with the student who added the new info (or anyone else who many be interested in the topic) to see if you can get him/her to come up with the references. If worse comes to worst, please delete anything that you cannot reference, and I will be happy to back up that action. As it is, the unreferenced stuff throws doubt on the reliability of the whole article, and so it will be better to just take it out if you (and/or others) can't reference it. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the heads up. It looks like the contributor has started to add some of the necessary information for complete references, but I'm still unsure about the actual content. I know it is important to represent all sides, but the I'm not crazy about the Opposition section. It definitely needs a copy edit, and like your hidden comments say, it should probably be repositioned or combined in another section. How do you feel about the new paragraphs at the ends of the Sentencing disparity and effects section and the Proposal and passage section? I'm worried that they might not adhere to the NPOV policy in the best way. Do you think the content is a useful contribution to the article? As I'm writing this, more content was just added as of 6:38 that I definitely think violates the NPOV policy. It reads: "There was never any scientific basis for the disparity, just panic as the crack epidemic swept the nation's cities. But cocaine in rock form is not 100 times more addictive than cocaine in powder form, as was believed at the time. Research long ago debunked that myth, but until now, members of Congress have refused to adjust the sentencing, loath to appear soft on crime even in a just cause." That's not good at all and should be removed, right? The new paragraph right after that repeats some information that I had included in the Impact section about the CBO estimate of savings from the act. That can probably go too. Let me know what you think, and thanks for the help! Gsrogers (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we need to represent the "sides" in proportion to their relative significance - that is to say, pretty much, in proportion to the amount of coverage they have received in reliable sources. I haven't tried to analyze the new material. After the new editor finishes, I can take a look and tell you what I think, but you may as well jump right in and do what you can. I agree with the basic premise of some of the new stuff that the discrepancy (and drug laws in general) are used to put large numbers of black people in jail, and I think references could be found to support this proposition. Also, it seems to me that the new editor did have at least one good idea, which is that the beginning of the article needs a little more background about drug laws in general, although I'd like your opinion on that. Yeah, the new stuff you quote is definitely POV and has to be removed. There are certain facts embedded in that language that could be used, like, there probably wasn't any scientific basis; police departments and governments probably did panic; somebody somewhere probably did say that it was lots more addictive. But all of these assertions would need to be referenced to survive. Once the new guy seems to be finished, do the best you can, and I'll take a look tomorrow. Feel free to leave me any questions you may have, and I'll consider them. Remember, though, you have done much more reading about this Act than I have, so your judgment is as valid as mine, or more so. That's what we do as editors: we make judgments about content and decide what stays, what goes, what gets expanded and what to discuss with others. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have worked on the article. Please take a look and feel free to modify anything that I did.  Can you find references, or add similar information, to this information that GWcontributor added but did not reference, and then deleted?  I think that something like this would be useful in the Background section, as we do not set up the history of the problem very well.  Note that we say it in the WP:LEAD, but then we do not say it, with references, in the article itself:
 * There was significant media attention on the national drug problem in that era, particularly on the epidemic of crack cocaine use and resulting violence in the inner cities. The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts were supposed to address this problem by increasing the penalties for drug crimes and targeting high-ranking members in the drug trade. Instead, the law resulted in much harsher penalties that targeted low-level offenders, particularly African-American males. The penalties for crack cocaine offenses were made much more stringent than those for the powdered version based on several misconceptions about the differences between the two forms of the drug. These misconceptions included the belief that crack cocaine was a much more addictive drug than powdered cocaine and that those using crack cocaine were prone to more violent behavior.


 * However, later medical and scientific research has proved both of these beliefs to be untrue. There is no difference in the physiological and psychotropic effects of either drug — they have been found to be pharmacologically the same and to have the same effects on brain chemistry after ingestion. Thus, all of the justifications that existed in the late 1980s to impose different sentencing structures based on which form of cocaine was involved in the crime have lost their merit, leaving no true reason for the disparity other than the inability of Congress to take effective action to change it.

Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article looks great! I really like the breakdown of the sections and subsections now. I will definitely look for references and additional information concerning the deleted paragraphs, although I may not be able to delve into it until later this week due to the craziness of finals right now. Thanks again for all the help! Gsrogers (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)