Talk:Jackie Goldberg/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Reppop (talk · contribs) 23:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources are reliable. Images are appropriately licensed.

• Earwig highlights two short phrases as being taken straight from the source: "kept her from getting a job in the Los Angeles Unified School District" and "program to transfer more authority to teachers, parents and community members". These should be rephrased to avoid using the wording in the source. See WP:CLOP.

  Rephrased to say "subsequently prevented her from securing a job within the Los Angeles Unified School District" and "established a program to give greater authority to the community, including teachers and parents". reppop^talk 21:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Still very similar, but these are standard phrases that are hard to rephrase so I think it's good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 26 cites "Garcetti and Woo advanced to a runoff, where Garcetti ultimately won the election." Verified.
• FN 23 cites 'Goldberg also spearheaded the revitalization of Hollywood, saying that the council "invested funds in Hollywood that were invested nowhere else in the city for the past 15 years."' The source has "Jackie Goldberg ... who spearheaded the revitalization of Hollywood". This is too close to the original and should be rephrased.

  Rephrased the sentence to "Goldberg also led the revitalization of the Hollywood area". reppop^talk 21:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK. We still have "revitalization of Hollywood" but there's no easy way to rephrase that and it's kind of a standard phrase so I think we're OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• FNs 36 & 37 cite "She also authored a bill that granted same-sex couples the same legal rights and obligations as married couples in handling children, money, and property. Governor Gray Davis promised to sign the bill." The source has "Gay partners in California will gain many of the same legal rights and obligations of married couples in handling children, money and property under a bill that cleared the Legislature on Wednesday and that Gov. Gray Davis has promised to sign." This is too close to the original and should be rephrased.

  Rephrased the sentence to "She also wrote a bill that provided same-sex couples with the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples concerning children, finances, and property, which Governor Gray Davis promised to sign". reppop^talk 21:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  This still uses the same sentence structure and many of the same words. I had a look at the two sources you give for this, and I think we could do something like this: "She also wrote a bill that eliminated some of the differences between domestic partnerships and traditional marriages. The bill gave same-sex couples financial obligations to each other and to any children, responsibility for each others' debts, and the ability to own property and file taxes jointly." This still has some language similar to one of the sources, which says "B205, Goldberg's measure, which would extend many of the rights associated with marriage to domestic partners. The rights include the obligation of couples to financially support each other and any children, the right to own land and property as a couple, and the right to file state income taxes jointly." I think this is different enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I replaced my sentence with the one you suggested. reppop^talk 20:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• FN 47 cites "In her first days back on the board, Goldberg challenged the aid to charter schools." The source has "In her first days back on the board, Goldberg challenged the aid to charter schools". I think this is OK -- "challenged the aid" is hard to rephrase.
• FN 49 cites "Goldberg defeated Martinez Duran in the election and was re-elected to a second term." I don't see this in the cited source.

  I've added a source from The Eastsider LA about Goldberg's victory against Martinez Duran. reppop^talk 21:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you fix these, and check the article for other instances that might need rephrasing in order not to run afoul of WP:CLOP? The article can't be promoted to GA unless it passes the spotcheck -- if I find more issues when I check again I'd have to fail the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've checked the article again and done more changes in order to give more context and to rephrase some parts of the article. reppop^talk 21:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

One point left above. I'll do another set of spotchecks, this morning if I have time, otherwise it'll probably be some time tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Second round of spotchecks; footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 29 cites "Initially facing competition from AIDS activist Cesar Portillo and legal services director Antonio de la Rosa, the latter withdrew from the race, leaving Goldberg and Portillo as the remaining candidates." As far as I can see this source does not mention de la Rosa by name, though it does mention a third candidate that was presumably de la Rosa.
• FN 52 cites "In the 2020 election, she was challenged by teacher Christina Martinez Duran. Goldberg faced opposition from Manhattan Beach businessman Bill Bloomfield, who ran attack ads against her." Verified.
• FN 31 cites "In the primary, Goldberg secured a landslide victory over Portillo, and subsequently proceeded to win the general election unopposed." The source is dated before the primary so can't be a source either for the primary or general election victory. I see you have valid sources in the electoral results table; I would add those here.
• FN 45 cites "The board opted to schedule an election on March 5, 2019, followed by a runoff on May 14, 2019, while also deciding against pursuing an appointment process." Verified.

I'm afraid this is a fail -- two of the four spotchecks found that the sources did not support the material cited. I would recommend going through each citation in the same way and making sure it really does support the material it's being used to cite, before nominating again. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)