Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tahirih Justice Center

Tahirih Justice Center
Self-nom. This article is about a non-governmental organization that helps women and girls fleeing gender-based violence. Read to find out more! The article received a peer review, but unfortunately there was little attention so I decided to take it here. But it was an article that received a lot of attention from other users, and to that end I'd like to give special thanks to Jeff3000 and Kirill Lokshin, whose tremendous advice and guidance in improving the article made this nomination possible. I eagerly await and appreciate all comments, suggestions, and criticisms. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Over the past couple days UberCryxic has added many citations for the statements in the text and the article covers the principle subject in depth, along with criticisms. -- Jeff3000 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Article looks good but subheading in history section are completely for display purposes and are just colorful words. Other sections subheading seem legit but in a way make the article look like it has little content since most subheading only have one medium/small paragraph under them. Expansion would be a good (possible) solution or a possibly merging of sections. Regarding the prose, im sure within a day or 2 there will be enough people to point out problems. 216.58.91.187 17:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I believe the subheadings in the History section are necessary because one describes a time before the organization existed and the other after. I hope that rationalization is sufficient, but I will be more than glad to change it if appears to be a big problem. I'll also take another look at other subsections. Again, thanks for your suggestions!UberCryxic 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support The article is very informative, and is in line with the FA criteria. Sources are well-documented, and, as Jeff3000 pointed out, includes criticism.  Well-written article.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support except I find the big quote with the big blue marks very distracting. Rlevse 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you, but it is a very important statement as regards the principles of the organization, and I wrote it like that to make it stand out.UberCryxic 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - parts of the article read like promotional material for the organisation the tone needs work; a few examples:
 * Tahirih's care and representation of its clients is aimed at making these hopes a realization
 * Tahirih tries to assist clients in a holistic perspective
 * Tahirih believes that one of its largest and most successful public policy initiatives
 * Tahirih has urged governments throughout the world to take responsibility


 * The issues section is kind of odd, it seems to be almost entirely composed of issues that the organisation is interested in - and a short desctiption of what the organisation thinks/does. Stats stop at 2003, why? The origin of the groups name should not be in the lead, it would be better placed in the history. 4000 people doesn't seem like many - the article doesn't really convey why what this organisation does in important.--Peta 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Peta! May I interest you in making some suggestions as to what you think those four initial statements should read like? The thing is I had problems with some of those comments myself, and if a number of my revisions could not fix the problem, maybe it needs outside help? Some of the stats do stop at 2003, but not all. I was reluctant to go further because that is the latest Annual Report the organization had published. The 2004-2005 one is coming out shortly. Somehow I just wouldn't feel comfortable giving people information that they can't access, though I realize I did use the 2004-2005 Annual Report sparingly (when this does go online it will be promptly linked).

"4000 people doesn't seem like many - the article doesn't really convey why what this organisation does in important."

Mmmm...maybe. But I suppose this is subjective. Tell it to one of their clients and see what they think. Anyway, what do you think this article could do more in order to convey a sense of importance? Once again, thanks a lot for your help!UberCryxic 13:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you ask someone who hasn't worked on the article to copyedit it. The lead probably also needs work to give the reader a better idea about what the organization does and why it is important, the lead should not cover stuff that isn't in the body (that's why I suggested you move the naming stuff). If the reader doesn't get a good idea about why an organizations work is important there is something amiss.--Peta 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree about asking someone who hasn't worked on it. That's why I asked you. I will see what I can do with your suggestions. Thank you!UberCryxic 02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Peta I've made the following changes:

-"Tahirih's care and representation of its clients is aimed at making these hopes a realization" --This has now been deleted because it sounded too....mushy?

-"Tahirih believes that one of its largest and most successful public policy initiatives" --Has been rewritten to "One of Tahirih's largest and most...."

-"Tahirih has urged governments throughout the world to take responsibility" --Has been rewritten to "Tahirih has urged what it believes are repressive or disinterested governments throughout the world...." Hopefully that makes it less POV.

-The first part of the holistic statement is explained in the next clause. I am not quite sure how to rephrase this without ruining the actual message.

-Origin of group's name is now in history section.

-The Issues section is designed to give people a better idea of what the organization does with women whose particular type of victimization represents a high percentage of the organization's litigation or with other issues that are high-profile (like female genital cutting) but may not represent what the majority of Tahirih's clients are fleeing from. Please let me know how you think this can be improved. Thank you.UberCryxic 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The improvements you have made are good, but the article is still written in the voice of the organization, and I don't think that is a neutral position. Take a look at Médecins Sans Frontières which discusses the work of the orgainzation in far more neutral terms. I'm not much of a copyeditor - you may want to ask User:Tony1, User:Spangineer or User:Bishonen to take a look at it.--Peta 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmmm I'm debating how "neutral" their tone really is; an overwhelming part of the article is sourced from MSF material, contrasted with this article, which is about 65-70% outside sources and includes a criticism section. I may have actually objected to that article on that ground alone (too many sources from MSF). Nevertheless I am working on neturalizing the tone; the problem is that it's a little difficult for somebody who has written an article to really go back and make sweeping or incisive changes, partly because the person wouldn't know where to begin (problem I'm having now) or because they would be too worried about ruining the article's structure, or something else. But you get my point; I really need someone from the outside to neutralize the tone. Tony's copyedit yesterday was good, but he only did one-third of the article. I'll work on it myself today and keep updating you. Thanks!UberCryxic 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - reads like a tour guide and some parts are stubs that can be expanded. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will now begin the process of making this article less POV, per requests. Outside help is strongly appreciated, however. Once again, thank you.UberCryxic 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodcontent, may you please give me some concrete ideas about what to do in order to mitigate the "tour guide" effect this article apparently has? Also, which parts in particular were you referring to? Thank you.UberCryxic 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

<!--*Support The article is very well written with plenty of linkage and sources, not to mention it's actually interesting.Casper 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Really good article.Faysals 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This article is nicely written and is more than well sourced.Vi3telit3 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Didn't seem like a tour guide. Could use help with prose in certain spots, but overall a nice article.Levis52 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I really enjoyed this article. Glad to know there are organizations who help out with that stuff. --Hardblock 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * About the above votes from Gustaf717, Faysals, Vi3telit3, Levis52 and Hardblock, all come from accounts with very few edits, I don't want to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, but this is not the way to get an article through FAC.--Peta 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are friends, as is one of the people whom you did not include in the list (MPD01605). The last two are from the organization. Is something wrong? I asked them to review the article and give their honest opinion. They are not sock puppets, and the accusation is frankly disturbing as I've already been through FAC successfully before. This should have been taken up with me personally anyway, and I also sincerely doubt it is appropriate for you to single them out like this, although admittedly you were working under the impression that they are sock puppets. Well, again, they are not. These are real people whom I asked to review the article and support it if they felt it was correct to do so. I request that the order of their support votes be reinstated. Thank you.UberCryxic 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, if you don't reinstate the order of their votes, then I see no reason to not challenge your assertions. Go ahead; prove they are sock puppets. Give the community and I some verification. This is a serious charge and I won't tolerate it.UberCryxic 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed the votes, I have just moved them here to make it obvious that all these votes came from people with no history of participation on Wikipedia. Raul may or may not choose to count them.--Peta 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this "making it obvious" effort could have another, more damaging consequence, namely poor reviews from other contributors who otherwise may have given positive feedback. This is why I strongly resent the manner in which this issue has been publicized, especially since, to my knowledge, I did not violate any rules. Raul can discount the votes even if they are in order, and I wrote to him advising just that. Furthermore, I wish this text here be deleted or moved another area (my or your talkpage).UberCryxic 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)-->


 * Support. Comments . This article needs some further modifications:
 * The "Goals and organization" is pretty messy and should be presented from a NPOV, rather than from a POV quote about "wings" and things like that...
 * I changed a "Tahirih" to the "organization," but other than that I should note that the part you are referring to is a quote. Quotes are allowed to be "wingy," especially when they inspire the mission of an organization. Was there any problem with the other text in the section?UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, I find the prose to be pretty thin. Especially, the four subsections in "Issues" are. It jumps straight to the organization without discussing about the subject, and they're just 1 para long. You have main articles for all of those, use them :D Too much summary style kills the summary style :)
 * We had a problem about this before taking it here. There used to be descriptions about the issue, but it was decided that since they are not really about the subject of the article (TJC), then they should not receive much attention.UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In "Fundraising", I don't get the $12,000 thing. What about the 3,537,900.59 revenue in the infobox? How about a chart detailing the origin of the funds or something like that. The section is pretty thin and mixed with the "Legal services" one...
 * A chart is coming. Should be up within a few hours!UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Fgm map should be resized so the text will be readable in the thumb.
 * Done.UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

These are, IM(NS :)HO, important matters that should be dealt with. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Minor object on a few points:
 * "No Tahirih client has ever been deported." - if their success rate for applications is 98%, what happens to the other 2% to prevent their deportation?
 * That statement has been deleted.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "A basic understanding of these problems is central to understanding Tahirih itself." - irrelevant statement of opinion.
 * That's gone too.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the see-also links.
 * Done, even though I prefer to have them there.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The formatting of the references is somewhat problematic; the third one, in particular, should not begin with a date. I suggest abandoning the templates and writing these out by hand. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by abandon the template? Can you do this for me? Not sure how to do it.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed it from the template to raw text; but I've formatted them as per the CMS (as that's the style I'm most familiar with). Is that a problem? Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no that's fine!UberCryxic 03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, support from me, as I can't find any other problems to pick on ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It appears to satisfy the criteria, and has an important message to disseminate worldwide to assistance organisations and women at large. Tony 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Much improved during FAC, nice job.  Sandy 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)