Draft talk:Andrew Straw

Compared with Hundreds of Other Disability Activist Wikipedia Pages, this One is High Quality

There is a very sour tone at the top of this draft that does not belong here. This should not be a draft 8 months on. All you need to do is look at the other approved pages in this list and see how true this is. List_of_disability_rights_activists 112.198.213.172 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see is more photos. His photo appears all over Google and on scores of news articles. 112.198.213.172 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears that this article, being stuck as a denied draft, cannot be added to the list of international disability rights activists. This alone is a reason to accept the draft, given many of those activists are not as well developed on Wikipedia as this article, yet they are not denied. 112.198.225.62 (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please Help to Achieve Encyclopedic Tone

Hello fellow editors. I received a notice that this article has a tone not consistent with an encyclopedia article, though the notability was not an issue, presumably because I have taken the time to add many neutral citations from newspapers, TV, and other reliable sources that fact-check. I want to make sure this article, which I proffered, meets all criteria for an article on Wikipedia, including tone. Please help me. As my username suggests, I am disabled and I don't mind saying it. Sometimes things like this require outside parties to assist because my disability makes me want to defend the subject of the article and thus I can use the help gaining some distance and perspective. In short, assistance with neutrality. Thank you for your help, always. DisabledEditor (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I made major changes to help the article achieve a more neutral tone, though I still ask for assistance. I used the Randall T. Shepard biography as a template because he is a living attorney in the same state as Straw. Straw appears frequently in the media because he is a political figure while Shepard was Chief Justice of Indiana, and thus is more known through his court opinions and not so much through media coverage. DisabledEditor (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am doing Google News and Google Scholar searches and scouring for relevant citations to match the text. The Internet is like a massive ocean and I keep finding fish. DisabledEditor (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

One editor appears to be vandalizing the draft, making unfounded accusations of COI and other accusations on my talk, and attacking the draft after he vandalized it, stripping sources and attacking sources. No editor/administrator should act like this and another one needs to be found without any connection to that one. The editor suggested falsely that I may have been paid to write this and that is simply 100% false. You can't make accusations without even a drop of evidence. It is unethical and I don't want an unethical person involved in this. DisabledEditor (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the page is getting closer to that mythical encyclopedic tone. I am going to try to model my next edits on other pages about prominent civil rights lawyers, such as Nan Aron or Lydia X. Z. Brown. Ms. Brown's page appears to have much the same tone as this article and there do not appear to be so many objections like this page has received. DisabledEditor (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears the article is increasing in quality over time. Previously it was a B Class article and now it has moved up to GA Class. Wikipedia:Content assessment, Wikipedia:AfC sorting. Hopefully it will be approved now. DisabledEditor (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, trying to address these new comments in the latest edits.  Does use of the word fight automatically constitute a peacock term?  I replaced fight with the word oppose.  Also, it is not clear that this article is "rife" with peacock terms or text.  It follows the same tone as the other civil rights attorney live person articles mentioned at the top.  If you can identify the "rife" problem rather than one example, let me know and I will make the appropriate edits.  Please note that this article has a GA rating and this is not consistent with the comment.  I converted a number of the external links into proper citations and adjusted the quote to include the NYT journalist. ~~~~ DisabledEditor (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Now there is a new objection, that the citations do not include enough verifiable sources. I put the whole list of references into Excel and quickly found that 59.3% are from newspapers, TV, radio, wire service, or news magazines. At what percentage does this need to be? Are no other citations besides these allowed? Certainly if those 64 citations are all that is allowed, that will decrease the quality and interest of the article, which right now is classified as GA-Class. It appears that these 64 perfectly permitted citations establish the notability. What remains is if ANYTHING ELSE can be included in the article as a citation. If notability is already established, for instance, some citations to Wikipedia:Primary sources should be allowable because they are not present to establish notability, but to provide more information. Please explain how Wikipedia policy is different from this and what exactly needs to be excluded once notability is established. I feel like I am spinning my wheels here and instead of simply rejecting a GA-Class article, how about accepting it as is and suggesting the few edits that it will take to achieve A-Class status? DisabledEditor (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want the article to be better, please make a simple list of the numbers of the citations that are objectionable so I can adjust the text so as not to need reference to those. This would be a great service and would help me with editing this. DisabledEditor (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I scoured the citations, made significant deletions and additions to address the reasons for denial. Reused a number of citations that support multiple statements made in the article. Added more information about Camp LeJeune. Resubmitting. DisabledEditor (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The article keeps advancing in content assessment with the changes and now is listed as being "FA-Class." Wikipedia:Content assessment "Featured Article." The citations issue has been fixed as has the quality of citations: verifiable now. NB the listing as FA-Class: Wikipedia:AfC_sorting. This appears to be a very high level of classification, so please agree to article being accepted. I agree that the earlier rejections were needed to motivate the necessary changes to come to this level. DisabledEditor (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The "content assessment" tags (Stub, Start, FA class, etc) on pending drafts are placed by an automated tool, and are not based on any assessment by a human editor – much less by a team of editors, which is what an actual FA assessment involves. Unfortunately, an automated "FA class" tag on a draft doesn't say anything about the actual quality of the draft – it is simply a prediction, and is very often wrong. (This is also true about all the other "class" tags in Wikipedia:AfC_sorting, and the notice at the top says so very explicitly.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted Photos

I added three photos (and I had one more to add) that were removed. Straw explicitly gave permission to use them on Wikipedia or anywhere else because he has used them for media, for his campaigns, on Ballotpedia.org, and in court filings. All court filings are in the public domain and the badge that was removed was created by an organization that no longer exists. The only limit he provided was not to use his signature to pretend to be him. That sounds reasonable. The article is kind of dry without any media and there is now media available, but it's being challenged on copyright grounds even when the creator says it is ok to use it. Help! DisabledEditor (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)