commented. |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Support'''. Meticulously well-sourced and good layout. Quite thorough and comprehensive. Great use of structure to organize and present the material on an important subject matter in an educational fashion. Thank you for contributing this quality improvement project to Wikipedia. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. Meticulously well-sourced and good layout. Quite thorough and comprehensive. Great use of structure to organize and present the material on an important subject matter in an educational fashion. Thank you for contributing this quality improvement project to Wikipedia. — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
'''Comment''' This article is quite good and well-organised as Cirt says. The prose can become a little verbose at times, so it needs a copy-edit. I have already taken a shot at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965&diff=605273526&oldid=605266117 trimming the Background] section. |
|||
Looking at the references though I see a potential issue: why are so many court cases and legislations directly used as citations? They are [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] and us interpreting them directly (rather than via [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]]) could [[WP:NOR|original research]] rules.—[[User:Indopug|indopug]] ([[User talk:Indopug|talk]]) 10:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:25, 22 April 2014
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a landmark piece of U.S. federal legislation that is a signature achievement of the 1950s-1960s Civil Rights Movement. It is a subject that continues to be of great importance to elections today and is currently a hot topic in Congress and federal courts. The article covers the Act's background, legislative history, provisions, impact, and constitutionality. I have worked on this article extensively since last June (and created two child articles), and it is now comprehensive and thoroughly cites to reliable sources. The article was promoted to GA status after a rigorous review by RJaguar3, and after further polishing, I believe the article now satisfies the FA criteria. I welcome any further feedback; thank you for your time! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Meticulously well-sourced and good layout. Quite thorough and comprehensive. Great use of structure to organize and present the material on an important subject matter in an educational fashion. Thank you for contributing this quality improvement project to Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment This article is quite good and well-organised as Cirt says. The prose can become a little verbose at times, so it needs a copy-edit. I have already taken a shot at trimming the Background section.
Looking at the references though I see a potential issue: why are so many court cases and legislations directly used as citations? They are primary sources and us interpreting them directly (rather than via reliable secondary sources) could original research rules.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)