Wikipedia

Talk:American Civil Liberties Union/GA1

< Talk:American Civil Liberties Union
Latest comment: 12 years ago by TonyTheTiger in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago181 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) This article is a monster 79.5kb of readable prose. It would be one of the longest WP:GAs on wikipedia if passed in its current format. I would like to learn about this organization, so I will dig through this article and review it. It may take me a few weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to review it. I'm pretty busy in Real Life, but I'm committed to doing what it takes to get it to GA status. I know the article is big, but it is within the WP acceptable size limits, and it would probably suffer if it were broken up. My model is the Manhattan Project article which is 15,800 words of prose, and achieved FA status. This article is only 12,500 words :-) That said, I'm open to splitting suggestions: but I have not been able to see a good approach to splitting yet. It sounds like you're going to go thru the article section by section, so I'll probably wait until you are finished before I begin implementing your suggestions (to avoid re-work, etc). Thanks again. --Noleander (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure where your "WP acceptable size limits" policy comes from. I have not read WP:SIZE in quite a while, but 60KB is a number in the back of my head. I will work through this slowly. Thanks for your patience.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I have reviewed some long articles, including Chevy Volt, Clint Eastwood (which had several WP:SPLITs), and Missouri River as well as Bill Clinton which would be quite long if several articles were not WP:SPLIT from it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
No worries. I have no objection to splitting, as long as it is a sensible split, and not just for the sake of getting the article under an arbitrary size limit. The key test is what is best for readers. I respect your judgement, and I'll wait patiently. --Noleander (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
WP:LEAD
  • The LEAD clock in at 1850 for one of the largest GAC candidates conceivable. I have not read the subsequent text, but every section should be summarized in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I would expect this lead to be in the 3000-3200 character range for any article exceeding the normal 50-60KB upper bound. Thus, more content should be included here while keeping the organization to 4 paragraphs or less.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Nearly Done - Expanded lead to be more comprehensive. I think it is a decent lead now, with the exception of the "contains a mention of every section in the article" goal. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
It now clocks in at 3700 characters, which is a bit longer than what I would like, but I'll reevaluate later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I find the table of contents a bit overbearing. The article will likely need to be reorganized. I guess I would think about whether each section is important enough that it should be summarized in the LEAD. If not, I would merge it with another section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
See progress report below under Reorganized. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Leadership
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Funding
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • We need to think about WP:SPLIT for an article of this length and specific cases toward the end of this section are examples of detail that might be moved to a less general article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • It seems to me that in this section, you should discuss the member ship dues of the 500,000 members.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
The fact that dues are voluntary is very encyclopedic and should not be buried in a footnote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done "Membership dues account for $25M per year and are treated as donations; members choose the amount they pay annually, averaging $50 per member per year." --Noleander (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
CLB era
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Free speech era
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Free speech
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Starting with the Expansion section through the Success section, I think many paragraphs should be merged to make sections less choppy. I have not read these sections, yet, Based on casual inspection, I would say merged or expanded, but I don't want the article to get any longer. Consider whether all fo the detail is truly encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reorganized - I merged some of the smaller sections, and grouped the sections into larger sections. See the new table of contents. I think it looks more inviting now, less scary. A few of the remaining sections (e.g. Privacy) are still a bit small, but they are 3-levels down, and merging them would require the section titles to become meaningless. Let me know what you think. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
New TOC looks grand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Expansion
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Changed to " The ACLU also played a key role in initiating a nationwide effort to reduce misconduct (such as extracting false confessions) within police departments,....". --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Depression era and the New Deal
Done - No, there is no case ... it was just a local effort. In any case, I rewrote entire sentence to be: "Even public health films portraying pregnancy and birth were banned; as was Life magazine's April 11, 1938 issue which included photos of the birth process. The ACLU fought these bans, but did not prevail." --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Jehovah's Witnesses
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Communism and totalitarianism
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
World War II
  • When you refer to the President, say who it was at the time.
  • Later, make it clear that "Roosevelt was a strong supporter..." refers to the President.
Done --Noleander (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Cold war era
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Yes, the wording was a bit confusing. I improved the wording to clarify the distinction between the 1940 internal purge within the ACLU (which indeed was described in a prior section) vs the ACLUs ambivalence re defending Cold War defendants. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
McCarthyism era
Done - I added the case information into the footnote of that sentence (namely: "The case was Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City, 350 U.S. 551 (1956).") but it was a minor Supreme Court case, so I did not put that red link into the body of the article. Let me know if it should be in the body. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Separation of church and state
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - it was School Prayer Amendment. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Freedom of expression
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - The source discusses free speech censorship in two eras: 1925-1935 (which is discussed above in the article) and 1945 to 1960 (which is discussed in this section). To clarify that for the reader, I changed the opening sentence of this (1945-1960) section to read: "During the 1940s and 1950s, the ACLU continued its battle against censorship of art and literature.". Let me know if I should do more. --Noleander (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Racial discrimination
  • "was undoing centuries of racism in federal, state, and local governments" s/b "was the undoing of centuries of racism in federal, state, and local governments"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
No, the ACLU was not directly involved in that case. The source, Walker, the primary historian of the ACLU devotes nearly two pages to that case (and related issues) because it was a major event in the history of civil liberties in the US ... even though the ACLU was not directly involved. Not sure if it should stay in this article. Since the ACLU was not involved in the case, perhaps it should be removed. On the other hand, this article is (for now) serving as the "history of civil liberties in the United States, after 1920", so one could argue that it should stay. Let me know which way to go. --Noleander (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Make it clear that the ACLU was not involved or remove it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Police misconduct
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Civil liberties revolution of the 1960s
Done - Although one is a red link. --Noleander (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - No, there is no case ... but there is a great article covering the topic Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era, so I linked to that. --Noleander (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Yes, both a case and two links. --Noleander (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The Dick Gregory case sounds like a big deal. Is there an important case? Even if it does not have an article, it should be mentioned by name or number.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Yes, there is a case. --Noleander (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Another widely publicized case defended by Morgan was that of Army doctor Howard Levy" please name the case and link it if possible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Vietnam war
Done --Noleander (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Added 367 F.2d 72: United States of America, Appellee, v. David J. Miller, Defendant-appellant. --Noleander (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why don't you add a case for David O’Brian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - added Cohen v. California. --Noleander (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Enclaves and new civil liberties
Okay - Yes, that was the correct thing to do. --Noleander (talk)
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have not seen Eve mentioned in any of the sources I read. The primary ACLU historian, Walker, does not have Eve in his index. I Googled ACLU & "arthur eve" and only got some rather tenuous results. So I think the answer is "no". --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Victim groups
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - I added links to homosexuals and gay rights. Improved wording to make usage more uniform: "homosexual" as noun when discussing a class of persons; "gay" as adjective e.g. "gay rights". --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Privacy
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Added link to Privacy laws of the United States. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Added links to Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion, which are the closest articles that WP has. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Allegations of liberal bias
  • Yale professor Joseph W. Bishop: If the professor does not have a WP bio, can you affiliate him with a school or department. Maybe link Yale Law School or the History department reference might help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Skokie case
Done - added Smith v. Collin 447 F.Supp. 676. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Where?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Is there a standard WP tool to do this? I'm not sure what multiplier to use for adjusting for inflation. The source just says $500,000. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
See Bobby Orr, e.g.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reagan era
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - added link; and also case ID North v. United States 910 F.2d 843. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
1990 to 2000
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Twenty first century
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Is there a case worth mentioning?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - That sentence was actually a hold-over from some prior editor (I wrote the entire article except the last 3 sections). The case here is about a Missouri state law, not the federal Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. I clarified the text; and I put a mention of the AFHA into a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
No. The ACLU won at the lowest-level Fed District court. The press release does not identify the case cite. As far as I can tell, it did not go to appeals court. --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Anti-terrorism issues
  • "The ACLU believes such legislation violates either the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Bill of Rights." in what way? against which clause?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Removed that sentence and replaced it with a more precise and authoritative policy statement (quoted) from ACLU itself. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Why, yes it was. Thanks for pointing that out. I've added "In 2008, the ACLU was part of a consortium of legal advocates, including Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, that challenged California's Proposition 8, which declared same-sex marriages illegal.[291] The ACLU and its allies prevailed.[292]". The appeals ruling was just a few days ago, and I cannot find an official cite for that ... maybe it is not published yet? --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
What is your interpretation of this tag as it pertains to File:CrystalEastman.jpeg, File:H l mencken.jpg, File:Elizabeth Gurley Flynn point.jpg, File:Japanese American Internment - Members of the Mochida Family Awaiting Evacuation 1942.gif, and File:DennisEugene.jpg?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - Sorry about that. I am not familiar with {{personality rights}} ... I thought it was only for living persons. Looking closer, I see it is also for deceased. I've added it to the above images. Thanks for letting me know about that tag. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why was the File:Scopes trial.jpg that was in this article when I started the review removed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - That image is not free. I'm not sure a fair use justification can be made for this article, since it is a bit remote from the photo. If you think a fair use rationale is justified, let me know, and I'll craft one. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

2nd pass edit

WP
LEAD
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Depression era and the New Deal
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
World War II
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Racial discrimination
Done - removed. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Civil liberties revolution of the 1960s
  • "Another widely publicized case defended by Morgan was that of Army doctor Howard Levy" please name the case and link it if possible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Vietnam war
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Skokie case
Done - The case ID was in the footnote; I moved it up into the text. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done - The sources do not give current year dollars, and I'm not aware of a tool to covert to current year dollars ... is there such a tool available? Used the inflation template. The text now reads: "... and raised over $500,000 ($1,812,121 in 2012 dollars)". --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Twenty first century
The footnote contains the federal case name, but it is was a lower court (district court) decision, not appeals or supreme, so it probably doesn't belong in the article body; but I can move it there if you think that would be best. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • The article is greatly improved through diligent and patient response by the able nominator. I continue to think that there should be some splitting of this article, but its current form meets the standards of WP:WIAGA. Therefore, I PASS the article. Proper splitting is hard to suggest because there is no one large section that could easily be split off into a sub article. It may be some time before this article is split for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union/GA1&oldid=477659641"