Talk:2018 Southeastern Provisions raid/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 06:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this review, suggestions coming soon. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 06:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Images

Image rights are in order. I did reverse image searches just to be sure.
"decided in favor" change to "ruled in favor"
The caption for "File:Tmphoto.jpg" is wordy and somewhat redundant to the passage itself. Simplify.

Copy-vios

Earwig only flags a block quote and proper nouns
Nothing noted on manual spot checks

Sources

Per WP:PERENNIAL, Rolling Stone, when used for sensitive issues like this, is not reliable. The quotes are fine.
"TWO MONTHS AFTER THE RAID: AN UPDATE FROM MORRISTOWN". Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition. June 13, 2018. Archived from the original on October 8, 2020. Retrieved October 4, 2020 WP:POV, not neutrally reported
Lakin, Matt (September 12, 2018). "Bean Station ICE raid: Slaughterhouse owner pleads guilty to hiring undocumented workers". Knoxville News-Sentinel. Knoxville, Tennessee. Retrieved July 28, 2019

-dead link, no archive

Do not use IMDB for a source, this would actual work well in the external links section
Netflix citation is functioning as a WP:PRIMARY source, remove
A quick search finds a couple of sources on the documentary that aren't used here

Misc

MOS:EXTERNALLINKS, The first link should just be combined into the prose, the second link has clear POV issues, and the third is largely redundant to the second link.
Page is stable
Add 'see main' template to film section

Prose

Lead is too short, and is missing integral details about the event itself, please expand.
MOS:NUMERAL and MOS:CITELEAD
'a year previous to the raid' awkward wording
'Reports have suggested' WP:WEASEL
' as much as possible' cut
In May 2017, as part of the then newly-established Trump administration's immigration policy targeting employers of undocumented workers, federal agents selected Southeastern Provisions and placed an informant to work at the facility. WP:POV issue, explain what the policy is, don't make a blanket statement that implied negative connotation.
'informant had observed', remove had
'would impose' change to imposed
'downward' vague term
'pump and dump" plan' expand
On April 5, 2018, a federal search warrant executed by the ICE, IRS, and the THP had the agencies raid Southeastern Provisions around 9:00 a.m EST. active voice for the whole paragraph.
'then flooded the plant" WP:PUFFERY
'Actions of violence' questionably WP:POV
'questioned by authorities' who?
"54 undocumented laborers" MOS:NUMERAL
' along with several arrested at Southeastern Provisions' reword, repetitive wording
' invoked uproar' WP:PUFFERY
Hipsher was later defeated in the county's Republican primary WP:POV (The whole paragraph as a whole), if there is a direction relation then please be explicit, this loosely implies something that may just be coincidence.
Many of the workers that had been detained... All in passive voice
Between the six plaintiffs, the U.S. government would split $475,000, ... awkward wording
Final approval for the settlement is planned for February 27, 2023. Out of date

Review part 2

Lead needs serious work, no mention of the lawsuit,
MOS:CITELEAD
'in Film" still need to be expanded
On April 5, 2018, a federal search warrant executed by the ICE, IRS, and the THP had the agencies raid Southeastern Provisions around 9:00 a.m EST. Federal agents had discovered 104 undocumented workers employed at the facility, detaining 86 and arresting 11. IRS officials had obtained information concluding that Brantley had paid the undocumented workers at a rate of $8–10 dollars an hour, with no extra pay for overtime FN 11 does not support all of this.
Why isn't the tax evasion issue mentioned, it was a major component on why the raid even began.

-Brantley hired an estimated amount of 150 undocumented workers in an attempt to reduce business expenses is all we get on this. There a lot more to this story than just reducing expenses.

Rename "in Film" to just Film
"He would be sentenced to 18 months..." active voice.
"the Trump administration, which had recently planned the raids of workplaces across the United States."

-I meant that you should expand this, not minimize it. Explain what the policy was, it's an important aspect to the piece as a whole. This was also brought up in the last GA review and it hasn't been addressed.

There is no immediate outcome listed for what happened to the people involved, just that they were arrested, then later brought a lawsuit.
There's little discussion about what happened during the lawsuit, there were issues of constitutionality and probable cause raised against ICE. The article jumps from pretrial to post-trial.
By April 2021, the United States Department of Homeland Security urged the Eastern District Court of Tennessee to exclude 41 agents involved in the raid from litigation This sentence goes nowhere, what was the impact of this? Why did they want them excluded?
Still a lot of passive voice in this last section.

From one source alone, I found a number of things in just [1] one source that weren't mentioned in the article.

"..first-ever class settlement over an immigration enforcement operation at a work site."
"The Great 'Steak' Out"
" complaint filed on Feb. 21, 2019,"
"Some of the folks who were arrested had proper documentation and were not undocumented in any way"
"Ninety-seven of the workers arrested during the raid were found to be undocumented and placed in deportation proceedings. About 20 of them went on to be deported."

Here's some good sources that could be included: [2], [3]

Comment: Please go through this article and make sure you're using active voice and not passive voice. All-in-all, this was a rough one to get through. I see it already failed one GA review so I'm willing to leave this open for now. On hold till 08/11. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AppalachianCentrist, giving you a customary ping since this has been open for 2 days without word from you. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All apologies @Etriusus, I have been on a long vacation out of town. Will look at your feedback now. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus, the issues highlighted above should be resolved.

Thanks, AppalachianCentrist (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize, but at this time I am going to fail the article. A handful of the recommended edits above were not addressed and the more I dig into it, the more I am finding missing information. This page could use a substantial expansion, furthermore, there are issues from the first GA review that haven't been addressed either. I understand that it can be disheartening to have a GA fail, trust me, I've been there. But this article has a good foundation and decent prose, it's just lacking a ton of information that is rather integral to the story as a whole. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.