Talk:National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC) I've already left some comments on the article talk page; I'll go ahead and do the GA review, and will leave any further comments here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

More comments.

• Can you say why the picture of police talking to a street person is appropriate for that section? It seems a little too tenuous a connection to me. I think a couple of other pictures are also not strongly enough connected to keep: the RCM one, and the CBSA/Vancouver police one. The article is amply illustrated and I think these could go.
• "the founder of Walk With Me": it's not clear what this organization is, and the source doesn't clarify. Some Googling quickly made it apparent why it's relevant; I suggest giving a parenthetical description with a source.
• "Eventually, Smith submitted "Connecting the Dots" to Harper": unless I'm missing it, the source doesn't actually say she submitted it. Obviously she did at some point, but I don't see it here. Whatever source you use, it would be good to pin the date down a bit more precisely than "eventually", if possible.
• "Perrin said that if the plan was to be effective, it needed to establish a strategy for preventing human trafficking, protecting victims, and prosecuting traffickers": I suggest cutting this sentence. My reading of the sources is that Perrin isn't making a statement about what is needed for the plan to be effective; he's just stating the goals that any plan should have; this is not new information at this point in the article, and I think it can go.
• "Perrin said that his book, which was published within three weeks of the release of "Connecting the Dots", "shows that while traffickers have a plan, Canada doesn't," and that the victims are the ones who suffer from the lack of such a plan." I think the refs for these are mislaid -- I can see that quote in this source, which you use elsewhere, but not in what's given here; and I'm not sure what the source would be for the second half of the sentence -- I don't see anything that would cover it in the source given.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for having taken on this good article nomination! I have removed the three images you indicated, moved the explanation of Walk With Me to the first mention of that organization, and removed the statement by Perrin that you indicated. I also removed the second portion of the sentence that was improperly cited. In looking for an applicable source for the quotation, I found a Winnipeg Free Press article that contains the quotation and also indicates that Perrin provided Smith with guidance in her writing of "Connecting the Dots", so I have added this information to the article. The Kingston Whig-Standard article states that "Smith drafted her own national action plan on child trafficking and submitted it to the Prime Minister", although it does not mention the date. I don't know of any other sources that mention this transaction, and it may have been the same event as her public release of "Connecting the Dots" in September 2010; in releasing the proposal to the public, she was effectively making it available to the Prime Minister, as he is one member of the public. Would you recommend that the sentence about Smith submitting the document to the Prime Minister simply be removed? Neelix (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've struck most of the points above. Re removing the sentence about Smith submitting the document: I think it's not high value to the article as it stands, because it doesn't give the reader any real information. You could remove it, but another option would be to leave it in with a footnote along the lines of "Sources do not specify when the proposal was submitted to Harper, but it was no earlier than <month, year> and no later than <month, year>", if you can find support along those lines. For example, any source you find that makes it clear it has been submitted provides a "no later than" date, and similarly a "no earlier than date" might be findable. Up to you; but I wouldn't leave it in unqualified.

I have a bit more time tonight so will try to read further and add any further comments. I'm moving house in a few days so my time is a bit fragmented, I'm afraid, but I will try to find a bit of time every day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have created a "Notes" section and included the note that you have recommended. No worries about fragmenting the discussion; I am very glad that you are doing such a thorough review. Neelix (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks good. You might consider adding citations within the note to the sources you used to get those dates.

I made a couple more tweaks, but found nothing else to concern me, so I've passed this as GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)