Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States)

Creation

I wrote this article as it was requestedDan 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! Added some sectioning, stub tag, wikilinks, link to the main article on no-fault divorce, etc. JubalHarshaw 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edu project

Group 2 for Professor Konieczny's Sociology of Marriage class will cover the following topics:

• Fault grounds
  • adultery
  • cruelty
  • abandonment
  • mental illness
  • criminal conviction
• No-fault grounds
  • Separation for a certain period of time
  • Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship ((irreconcilable differences//incompatibility of temperament))
  • What states accept this? MD & VA…
  • Shift of the acceptance of these
    • arguments for & against

• OTHER GROUNDS
  • Alcohol/ drug abuse
  • Impotency beginning from the time of the marriage & continuing until the time of the divorce, such that the marriage was never consummated
  • Failure to support 1’s spouse even though 1 has the ability to do so
• UNUSUAL GROUNDS
  • Joining a religious sect that destroys the marriage (New Hampshire)
  • Infection 1’s spouse with a venereal disease (Illinois)

• Defenses to grounds
  • The accused spouse was not actually at fault (for fault grounds)
    • condonation//reconciliation
    • recrimination
    • provocation
  • Spouses were not actually separated for the requisite period of time (for no-fault grounds)
  • There is still a chance of reconciliation (for no-fault grounds)

• Most common causes for divorce in the countries=
  • adultery
  • desertion
  • cruelty
  • conviction of crime

RESOURCES:

• Choudhri, Nihara K. The Complete Guide to Divorce Law. New York: Citadel, 2004. Print.
• Haman, Edward A. How to File Your Own Divorce. 4th ed. Naperville, IL: Sphinx Pub., 2003. Print.

--Naf24 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC) --Naf24 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Statsky, William P. Family Law the Essentials. 2, Illustrated, revised, Cengage Learning pub., 2003. Print.
• Ventura, John, and Reed, Mary Divorce for Dummies. 3, Illustrated, For Dummies Pub., 2009. Print.
• Parkman, Allen M. Good Intentsions Gone Awry: No-Fault Divorce and The American Family. Illustrated, Rowman and Littlefield Pub., 2000. Print.
• Ehrlich, Shoshanna J. Family Law for Paralegals. 4th ed. Aspen Publishers Online Pub., 2007. Print

--Nas132 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Divorce: Causes and Consequences. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print.
• Lichtenberger, James Pendleton. Divorce: A Study in Social Causation. New York: Nabu, 2010. Print.

--Ntj2 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be researching and providing information on the topics listed under “fault grounds” as well as the defense, “the accused spouse was not actually at fault” and the key terms that go along with it. --Naf24 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be researching and providing information on the topics under "No Fault Grounds" as well as the defense, "There is still a chance of reconciliation".--Nas132 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will research and supply information about the topics under "other/unusual grounds" and the "Spouses were not actually separated for the requisite period of time" defense. Ntj2 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, both the outline and the references (reliability, relevance). Keep it up! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review-Natalie Fisher

After reviewing many of the wiki pages that the other groups are working on, I have come up with some ideas we might want to think about incorporating on our page. Group 1 is creating a wiki page on College dating; when I first analyzed the groups page there was a picture on the wiki page. However, I believe there must have been a problem with that specific picture that they had to remove it. But, I think that by adding a picture it grabs people's attention and makes them more interested in reading the page (at least thats how I felt when looking at their page). We would just need to find a picture that is acceptable and has all the necessary copyright information.

In addition, on many of the pages under certain section headings there are links that say "see also;" like on Group 6's page, Single parent, under the section that is labeled "Effects," it says See also: Implications of divorce & "Implications of divorce" is linked to that wiki page. I think this will be very useful for us to include in our page as well because some of our topics/grounds we are covering have their own pages that may include information that we don't happen to include in our page, such as Irreconcilable differences.

--Naf24 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Review!

Hi! I read your article, and it is really interesting! I never knew there was anything more than just a basic divorce. I only have two suggestions: 1.) maybe remove some of the parenthesis int the first section about no-fault 2.) perhaps add in abuse (physical/emotional) to the section of reasons for fault divorces (if this applies...I am not sure it is a formal reason or not) Your article looks really interesting--great job so far, guys! BonnieNoel (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bonnie for the suggestions! I am actually covering the Fault divorces section and abuse actually fits right in under the ground, "Cruelty." It is a formal reason so we definitely will be covering it, good thinking!--Naf24 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Review~Natalie Sebula

I agree that our wiki page could use acceptable pictures. I have noticed the "see also" section, and that was another good suggestion that would add more helpful information on grounds for divorce to our viewers. Some of the suggestions that I would like to make is that I think we just need to add our information under our headings, use reference/cite links, and add more internal links to our sections. I have to do more research on external links but if we could add more information/links under the external link section I think that would enhance our wiki page as well. I think our wiki page is starting to come together nicely. --Nas132 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

hey there!!

After reading your article it seems like you all have found a lot of insightful and interesting information on the topic of divorce, so I applaud you for the work you've done thus far. Something I would like to suggest to you is possibly adding a section about how divorce effects the family regarding fault divorce and no fault divorce (if there is separate information on how each individual type effects the family).

Other than that I'd say your article looks great so far and I'm excited to see how it turns out in the end.

Mjc112 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

Hey guys first I would like to say your article is coming along VERY well. It is definitely much farther than my groups currently haha. After looking it over there were two minor things that I figured I would point out, more reference related than anything. First I thought I would ask about reference 5 and 6. They seem to be the same reference (I may be wrong though since I was not the one that looked these references up), but provided they are the same reference, it might be worth combining the two into 1 since the only difference I saw was the pages used in each of them. Second, I had noticed that there seemed to be a trend of 1 reference per section, though I am sure that is just while you guys are searching for more more references to "buff up" each section with. Anyhow your page is looking terrific!

Kgw2 (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Review: Nicole Johnson

I agree that our article would benefit from greater picture use and an expansion of references (and a reference list 'clean-up'). Based on what I have seen on some other people's pages, I think adding a 'history of divorce' section, and some relevant statistics (e.g. demographics, trends, effects on the family and society at large) could potentially make this article even better. Perhaps we could also provide more inside and outside links related to our topic. Ntj2 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

Hey guys I have to say I think your outline is pretty solid and think you have a good amount of sections to describe your topic accurately and in an interesting way as well. It looks like a lot of these topics have legal implications so I think going to the Law Library might help you to get a better picture with court case examples or what ever you want to look up. I would say though to keep it interesting try no to go the legal route too much unless you think its essential in getting your message across. I agree with another review I saw in maybe making an abuse (physical/emotional) section in there which can sum up a lot of the other things you have listed. Other than that great progress. Davidjk43 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Davidjk43

Possible chance for front page exposure

You are off to a really nice start. Your article is now eligible for the main page exposure, but to make it so, you need to fix a number issues:

need to fix:

• empty sections: they must have some content
• stub template should be removed
• wrong level of headings: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Headings

may need fixing for DYK, will need fixing for GA:

• insufficient reference density: you should reference each sentence, not only each para
• globalize: do the grounds for divorce exist outside US? The article needs to answer this, and if the answer is yes, at least attempt a brief coverage of this in major world countries.

Finally, watchlist and make sure to answer promptly to issues raised by a DYK reviewer at Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce. DYKs are time sensitive, and a few days of your inaction will cost you your chance at a front-page exposure, with comes with many thousands of article views, and (from me), with the 5 extra credit points. Good luck, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on what needs to be fixed. I have removed the stub. Also, I have changed the headings; did that fix the issue with those?

I have also removed the empty sections and intend on adding information for those topics by the end of this week.

As for references, what if the information we are finding for that section comes from that one source? How are we to make citations for each line?

--Naf24 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Headings have improved, good job. You still need to decapitalize most titles, see Wikipedia:Capitalization. For references, you need to have the ref tags after each sentence. See for example an article on Repertoire of contention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Natalie, thank you for acting fast on fixing the problems. I have a question with the references. Why are the authors names coming up in red on the ones that I did? is there a problem with them? what is a stub? --Nas132 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference question answered here. You can also ask for help at places mentioned in the syllabus (such as Wikipedia:Help desk). On the subject of things in the syllabus, the term stub should be mentioned and linked there too, but for your convenience, see Wikipedia:Stub. I hope those help, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What are these cite errors for?? I have tried :everything to get them to go away but nothing works --Naf24 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above in the linked discussion, you have unused references (as in: ref name=something, where in fact no ref name=something is used anywhere in the text). I've now removed three of those errors, see [1]. How did I find what to remove? Easy: the ref error gives you the name of the reference, I just looked for it in the list and removed it. For example, one of the red errors noted that the "The_Comple_Guide_to_Divorce_Law" reference is unused, so I just searched for it in the list and deleted it - and voila, one error message went away. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC) PS. The errors are a result of the edits starting with this, where reference tags where removed from text, but not from the reference section. As you can see, the original text had a <ref name="Family law : the essentials"/> reference which was subsequently removed (it appears on the left, but not on the right). And lo and behold, the result is that the first error occurs here. As more references were partially removed, the number of errors started to go up. Wikipedia is thus complaining, in plain words, that "you list a reference in the reference section, but you are not using it in text". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it thanks! I removed them and replaced them with corrected codes, but was not aware that the codes I remove stay in the reference list. So now I am full aware and won't let it happen again. --Naf24 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In some articles most of the code is moved to the reference list. I support this, as it makes the main text more readable and scary. But yes, that means that to fully kill a reference, one has to search for all instances to it, in the text and in the ref list (fortunately, browsers have search function, so that is usually easy). See if you can add the references to individual sentences - the sooner you do this, the less confusion may arise in the weeks or months to come (when you try to recall where a given piece of info came from). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job increasing the density of referencing, this is increasingly looking like a professional article. Some other items to look into: 1) add more blue links where appopriate 2) some headings don't sound encyclopedic - avoid full sentences or questions in titles 3) "Shift of acceptance of these" - reword, lose "these" 3) try to address the issues noted on the templates. Keep up the good work! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that you have a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent job with recent expansion, this looks very good. Here's a suggestion for future improvement, and to make your life easier: when citing books, you can use the http://reftag.appspot.com tool, and link to specific pages on Google Books. For example, you cite p.190 from Good intentions gone awry : no-fault divorce and the American family. Using that tool, you can copy the page link and generate a citation without the need to fill in the cite template manually, one that will link to the page in question ([2]). Such a link is useful, both for the readers and for the editors like yourselves, since you could quickly go to the book and verify things (or look for clarification/material to expansion) even without having the book present with you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I used it to add 4 new sources. --Naf24 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the person that wrote on Template: Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce. However I have a question about one of the comments. The person stated that they think our page is not well referenced. How is our page not well referenced when we have a reference after each sentence? or am I misunderstanding this person. Thanks --Nas132 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You may want to ask them for details (if you cc them on their talk page they'll reply faster), but I think their comment referred to the old version of this article from 3 days ago. Since then, you've done a lot to improve the referencing. A minor comment looking at the newest version: overuse of bolding (and full capitalized words), see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#How_not_to_apply_emphasis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Hi, I like the way this whole article is well-referenced. Good job! I noticed that a citation is placed after every sentence. This isn't necessary when a few sentences are being supported by the same reference. As you can see from this diff, I removed the citation found at the end of every sentence since the same reference is used for the whole paragraph. This is how the section looks like now. Although this is a minor problem (the content and referencing is more important), please have it corrected. Bejinhan talks 03:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I will respectfully but strongly disagree. Why the references should've been combined (Wikipedia:CITE#Repeated_citations), each sentence needs to be referenced. On Wikipedia, content can be split, moved, or added. Imagine somebody splitting this paragraph into two - suddenly the first para is unreferenced. Imagine somebody inserting a referenced sentence in the middle, now falsely implying the preceding sentences are referenced with another ref than they were. With the Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue exception in mind, all sentences should be referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Article moved to Grounds for divorce (United States law)

I moved the article Grounds for divorce to Grounds for divorce (United States law) because it was clearly written from the American perspective. All other cultural practices were tacked on as an afterthought, not incorporated from the beginning. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In carrying out the move, I removed the following text which may be used to form new articles discussing "grounds for divorce" in other countries:

It is imperative to state a variety of reasons for the breakdown of marriage globally and primitive communities to some extent.For example, Sudan is a remote place where adultry is a common practice. However, In Sudan adultry is considered a ground for divorce.

In more established countries one of the frequent issues of family law is the merits and demerits of fault-based and non-fault-based grounds for divorce. A majority of countries and states have been accepting no-fault grounds for divorce including numerous of grounds beyond the breakdown of the marriage. Several legal systems do not want to eliminate fault completely and reserve it in limited situations.

In other countries like Switzerland they terminated fault as one of the grounds for divorce and recommened divorce by mutual consent. In Germany a 1 or 3 year sepration plus a mutual agreement will compose as a ground for divorce.

In China there ancient law consisted of three types of divorce that were recognized: 1) Mutual consent; 2) repudiation "seven grounds for men and three grounds for women"; 3)"intolerable acts against principles of conjugality." In 1981 Chinas marriage law was based on the assumtion that marriage is established of of love, understanding, and mutual respect, which will conclude of loyalty and dedication to the nation.

References for above section

I hope this helps those who invested effort in the attempt to globalize the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is added to the grounds for divorce (now a redirect here), and the current article is summarized there (per WP:SUMMARY). This would count towards extra credit if it is done by the students (hint :) ). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not promoted after 34 days.

Brief review of discussion regarding plagiarism and close paraphrasing

• Lionratz (talk · contribs) asked editors to check for close paraphrasing on 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC), 29 days ago:

  Lastly, since I do not access to the citations, I will assume good faith. However, do check that you have not plagiarized anything from them. (see this for more info)

• Issues with close paraphrasing, copyright violations, and plagiarism were raised by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) on 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC), 14 days ago. She provided a paragraph-long example, noting that there were more close paraphrasing issues.

• The issues were addressed, and Nikkimaria commented again at 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC). She noted several more close paraphrasing concerns and issues with incorrect citations (content cited to a source did not appear in that source).

• At 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC), she noted several more examples of plagiarism and noted that "[t]his seems to be a pervasive problem in your research writing." At 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC) and 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC) she provided further examples of close paraphrasing.

• Piotrus (talk · contribs) provided guiding comments to his students at 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC), 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC), 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC), and 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The issues were addressed but the article was not completely reviewed for close paraphrasing:

Close paraphrasing

• Article: "To obtain a divorce on grounds of adultery the accusing party must present proof that their spouse voluntarily engaged in sexual relations with someone else."
• Source: "In order to obtain a divorce on grounds of adultery, you must demonstrate that your spouse voluntarily engaged in sexual relations with someone else."
• As noted below by Piotrus (talk · contribs) at 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC), I have also noticed "sentence[s] [that] have only had synomym, but not a structure, change".

Incorrect citations

• Article: "Research has shown that sexual compatibility is strongest in relationships whose partners are about ten years apart. Given that the average age difference between the members of most couples is smaller than this (by about two to five years), it is no wonder that impotency is a concern for many. Once the hitched pair reaches their third decade, their sex drives tend to desynchronize. Other sexual incompatibilities, such as difference in preferences, worsen the issue. Based upon this consistency problem, couples are able to file for divorce."

• Page 11 of The Complete Guide to Divorce Law does not discuss sexual compatibility between spouses. I looked at page 10 and page 12 of the book but could not find the information there either.

• Article: "Marrying someone of a different religion, ethnicity, or vastly different culture could also pave the way for divorce. One partner may find himself/herself unable to handle the societal pressures of the arrangement, or may feel pressured to conform to the spouse’s/other culture’s ideals (e.g. child rearing, dietary changes, etc.), which could lead to resentment. In New Hampshire, one unusual ground for divorce is an option for someone whose other half has joined a religious sect that destroys the marriage.

• Page 9 of The Complete Guide to Divorce Law does not discuss that marriage to a person of a different religion, ethnicity, etc. can be reasons for divorce. Pages 7, 8, 10, and 11 of this book were also cited in the article. I checked those pages in case the wrong page was cited. I was unable to find this information in any of those pages.

Reason for rejection

• I am rejecting this article because of the close paraphrasing and failed verifications. After 34 days, much discussion has occurred and significant improvements to the article have been made. However, the problems I found are not trivial and indicate that the article needs much work. I spotchecked the article for close paraphrasing and other issues. I did not review the entire article, so there may be more close paraphrasing or citation issues that need to be addressed.

Additional comments:

• Citing sources like the following:

1. Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. Vol. 1. Callaghan. pp. 420–443. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
2. Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. Vol. 1. Callaghan. pp. 444–468. Retrieved 9 October 2011.

should be avoided. Page ranges of over 20 pages make checking sources difficult. The citations should be broken down into small ranges of no more than two pages if the information is spread out through 20 pages.

• Several of the sources use "pp." when only one page is being cited. The |p= should be used instead of |pp= in such cases.
• In the "Irretrievable breakdown" section, marriage is overlinked.
• In the "State acceptance" section, the term "no-fault" is presented inconsistently. It is quoted once, then italicized, and without quotes or italics.
• ISBNs should be consistently formatted: either with our without hyphens.
• Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. Vol. 1. Callaghan. p. 500. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
  • Nelson and Henderson's book was published in 1895 and was used to cite "Defenses commonly used to prevent a fault divorce are". The article does not make it clear that the information is over one century old. A more current source should be used since the article is framed to discuss contemporary issues.

Concluding comments:

• This is the second DYK nomination from this class I have had to fail. (The first is here.) The common reasons for failure were close paraphrasing and failed verifications. I recommend that in the future, the articles are checked for close paraphrasing and inaccurate citations prior to a DYK nomination. DYK's resources are limited and this nomination has expended much time from several reviewers. There are deep problems with this article that cannot be resolved within DYK's narrow timeframe. I thank the students, particularly Nas132 (talk · contribs), for responding to and addressing Nikkimaria's concerns about close paraphrasing.
• I thank Piotrus (talk · contribs) for guiding his students during this DYK nomination and helping them with editing the articles. This is frequently not the case, as noted here and here by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs).

Cunard (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for divorce (United States law)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that there are multiple grounds for divorce?

• Comment: This is a class assignment of my students, one of the rare ones that meet the 5x expansion within 5 days (whether you look at Sept 28-Oct 3 or Sept 29-Oct 4). I know the article still has issues, and I'll ask the review to keep in mind that the students are new to Wikipedia and have never gotten a DYK done before. Please give them as much suggestions and advise as possible, and I am sure they'll try to address the issues raised. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Naf24 (talk), Nas132 (talk), Ntj2 (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)

Article review

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	Lionratz (talk)	AGF

• I think that there are areas that can be improved:

* The article is not neutral. The laws stated here are mainly US laws, when this topic is very broad-based and many other countries have similar laws in place. Try adding examples from other countries to meet Wikipedia:NPOV

* The lead section is too short. The lead should be a summary of the points covered in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for more details.

* Try to reformat URLs by using the [www.example.com Example] template found in the "Help" found at the top of the editing box for the "External links" sections. You can also try find more relevant links (like those from overseas).

* This is my opinion, but I think that the article is not well referenced because there are large areas of text that do not have a citation. Also, short sections like the "Defenses to grounds" section can be expanded.

Lastly, since I do not access to the citations, I will assume good faith. However, do check that you have not plagiarized anything from them. (see this for more info) I am not a very experienced reviewer, so you may like to get a second opinion. Good luck!--Lionratz (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! We definitely will be adding information on other countries and expanding the lead section.--Naf24 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions!! We are still working on our wiki page and we still have alot to add. We also have alot of final touches to do. We will take your suggestions into serious consideration. --Nas132 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has improved a lot. However, in my opinion, the hook does not sound really interesting and might not attract much attention. Perhaps you all might want to address this?--Lionratz (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that in the United States a criminal conviction can be a ground for divorce?; perhaps this is more interesting? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's an option. I wonder if the students would like to propose anything? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That does sound more interesting. We are actually currently working on the intro paragraph to the page because it needs fine tuning. Thanks for your input --Naf24 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the complement! Thank you for the suggestion! As my group member stated above we are still doing adjustments to the page and that is one thing we are still working on. Keep us updated on what you think of our page!--Nas132 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am all for ALT1, and since all other parameters checks out, I think this article should be ready. Good job!--Lionratz (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

: close paraphrasing/copyvio concerns. One example (there are more): "Ultimately, at least one spouse might make sacrifices based on a long-term commitment to the marriage, then the grounds for divorce should shift to mutual consent.[6] The sacrifice is a cost of change.[6] With the changes in the parties circumstances, the grounds for divorce would change to mutual consent.[6] The reason for the change is because accommodations for the long-term benefit of the marriage may be subtle, setting a predetermined period, such as 5 years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault divorce to mutual consent divorce would seem reasonable" (in the article) versus "Eventually, at least one spouse may make sacrifices based on a long-term commitment to the marriage, and then the grounds for divorce should shift to mutual consent...This sacrifice is a cost of the change...With these changes in the couple's circumstances, the ground for divorce would shift to mutual consent. Because accommodations for the long-term benefit of the marriage may be subtle, setting a predetermined period, such as 5 years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault divorce to mutual consent divorce would seem to be reasonable" here). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it so thank you for pointing that out. I would appreciate that you list all examples that you feel that are close to paraphrasing/copyvio concerns, and I will change them asap. --Nas132 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think, NM, is this enough? Is there anything else? I'll add Google Book links to facilitate verification.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly better, but I would say it's still uncomfortably close. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Further examples:

• "Presently, all states recognize some type of no-fault divorce.[4] If the decision is made that a no-fault divorce is best for your party the situation, then, neither party has to prove any grounds for divorce.[4] All that needs to be done for the no-fault is to have one member from the party acknowledge that things did not work out between both spouses.[4] The mutual understanding to attain a no-fault ground divorce is comprised of "incompatibility," "irretrievable breakdown," or "irreconcilable differences."[4] A no-fault divorce is generally less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on the spouses and their children because no proof is needed.[4] In conclusion, the no-fault divorces are highly customary as compared to fault divorces." vs "Currently, all states recognize some form of no-fault divorce.[4] If you opt for this kind of divorce, you don't need to prove that your spouse did anything to cause you to seek a divorce.Instead, all you really need to do is acknowledge that things "just didn't work out" between the two of you. Common grounds for obtaining a no-fault divorce include "incompatibility," "irretrievable breakdown," or "irreconcilable differences." Because you don't need to prove fault, this type of divorce is usually less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on spouses and their children than most fault divorces. As a result, no-fault divorces are much more frequent than fault divorces."
• "However, a majority of states decided to keep their existing fault grounds and just added no-fault ground provisions which created a dual system of divorce.[5]" vs "A majority of states, however, chose to maintain their existing fault grounds and add no-fault provisions, thus creating a dual system of divorce."
• "The results of the survey revealed that the Americans are not happy with the no-fault divorce and are in favor of changes that would make divorces more difficult to obtain.[7]" vs "...half of all Americans are not happy with no-fault divorce and are in favor of changes that would make it more difficult to obtain a divorce"

I didn't finish all of the sources (stopped midway through FN 7), but this should be a good indication that substantial work is needed. Keep in mind that plagiarism/close paraphrasing extends not only to word-for-word copying, but also synonym substitution, phrasing and paragraph structure. In addition to the issues detailed above, I'm also noticing some other sourcing problems - for example, FN 4 should include page 15 of the source, and I can't find the info on defences from fault divorces anywhere in that source (it's later cited to a different source, but the section titled "Fault divorce" uses FN 4). Please double-check. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

how is that first example of what I have even close to whats in the book? The stuff that I did cite I put in quotation marks.--Nas132 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[synonym ], "all states recognize some" [synonym ] of no-fault divorce - for the first sentence. Same structure, only 2 out of 9 words changed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made more corrections to my paragraphs to the examples provided above. Hopefully these changes that I have made are more satisfactory than disappointment. If anyone else sees anymore errors in my sentences that are to close to text I would greatly apperciate it if you would provide examples so I would be able to have a visual of my mistake and I will make the changes asap. I know no excuses are excepted in situations like this but this is my first wiki page and this was not my intentsions to have a form of plagiarism in my paragraphs.--Nas132 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but this isn't really an obscure wiki-rule - plagiarism is something which students are taught to avoid in academic writing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't rechecked the above changes yet, but continuing from FN 7:

• "Economist Robert Rowthorn disagrees that no-fault divorce impairs the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage.[7] The principal of this argument is that marriage, which has similarities to a business partnership, is an institution of trust which enables two people to have confidence to make long-term investments in their relationship.[7]" vs "...the economist Robert Rowthorn argued that no-fault divorce undermines the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage. His central argument is that marriage, like a business partnership, is an institution of trust which enables two people to have the confidence to make long-term investments in their relationship." Note also that your version actually presents the opposite of what the source says via the substitution of "disagrees" for "argued".
• On the other hand, direct quotes should be identical to the source, and the quote from Wardle you attribute to FN 7 is not
• "At the turn of the millennium, Wardle further states that some type of reform will be accepted in many states within the next decade.[7]" vs "She also asserts that...some sort of divorce reform will be adopted in many states within the next decade...she wrote this at the turn of the millenium." This example is better paraphrased than some of the others, but includes some identical phrasing
• "2) Fault base divorce hinders the effect on marital misconduct.[7] 3) No-fault divorce provides unjustified outcomes toward the division of property allocations and alimony awards.[7] 4) No-fault divorce is a condition of wider cultural change that reflects immoral thinking about marriage and families.[7] Ellman feels that none of these arguments are well founded.[7]" vs "fault-based divorce has a deterrent effect on marital misconduct; (iii) that no-fault divorce leads to unjust outcomes in property allocations and alimony awards; and (iv) that no-fault divorce is an aspect of wider cultural changes which reflect amoral thinking about marriage and the family. Ellman concludes that none of these arguments is well-founded."

Stopping there. This seems to be a pervasive problem in your research writing. It might be advantageous for you to seek guidance from a writing centre or other venue to help you avoid overly close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the next step I have to take to get these citation boxes off our wiki page?--Nas132 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

By "citation boxes" do you mean the close paraphrasing and copyediting tags at the top? If so, you need to address the issues in the article sufficiently that they are no longer required. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that while your recent edits are helping with synonyms and such, you still need to change the sentence structure. Just like the example I mentioned above, the "Fault base divorce" [synonomym] "the effect on marital misconduct" is not a sufficient change. I've noticed that in some instances you expanded and elaborated various sentences, that's good, adding your own words helps a lot. Consider this sentence: "Marital misconduct is affected negatively by many factors, such as fault base divorce." This sentence keeps the two legal jargon terms, but not only changes the rest of the words, it changes the structure (as much as is possible in a short sentence). You could improve it even further, by adding or merging (if exists previously) the definition of a "fault base divorce" to the sentence, ending with something like "Mm is affected negatively by.... as fbd, which can be defined as...". Absorb the information, then break down the sentences into smaller parts, move them around forming new sentences. This will change the structure, per my comment on your talk page, and should, hopefully, result in the tags at the top being no longer necessary. Again, look at the example at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, particularly the one in the section that shows what is an acceptable rewrite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, could you explain the rationale for the copy editing tag? I am not very fond of it, as it is so broad, and I don't think the article suffers from a broad range of problems, beyond the close paraphrasing issues (for the start/C class article, of course).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am appreciative of all the help that everyone has given me. I will continue to make adjustments, and I always welcome helpful advice. I will take the advice of going to a writing center to enhance my grammar. I just ask you to give me a few days to do that because I have to schedule a appointment at the writing center, and I have to ask my advisor on how to schedule a appointment. I promise you it is my intention to put my best foot forward and help this page grow in a positive way.--Nas132 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Through Nikkimaria may want to comment on grammar, I think that the writing center help would be most useful in discussing how to avoid close paraphrasing. While I certainly encourage you to seek their assistance, please note that this DYK nomination does not have a few days; the cp issues should be fixed this weekend. At the same time, as I said above, I think you've been making progress in fixing them, and changing the sentence structure shouldn't take you too much time. Let me know if any of the examples or suggestions we gave you were not clear enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ok thank you I will work on this asap. --Nas132 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the change to the last example that you gave. Just to make sure I understand you still need me to make futher adjustments on my other sections?--Nas132 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you think you've addressed all close paraphrasing issues - in other words, redid the structure of all of your sentences so they do not resemble the original ones? When you'd like me to review all of your work again, I can do so, but please keep in mind my grading announcement. If you are not sure whether a given sentence is too close to the original or not, rewrite it further to be sure. PS. A cursory glance at this suggests that there are still sentences whose structure hasn't changed, and where only some words were replaced with synonyms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I had made a substantial amount of changes since this was brought to my attention yesterday. I am keeping in mind your grading announcement. I did notice points were deducted from my grade. I did look at the link that was provided and the things that are in red are the things that need to still be changed on my side? --Nas132 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The things in read are just to show you (us) what has changed (as a result of you recent edits), so that you can see which parts may require further clean up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I made things more clear and concise. Hopefully this will eliminate the problem.--Nas132 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecking work that's been done here: "State acceptance" paragraph (FN 4) is structurally still quite close to the source, and includes a verbatim phrase ("less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on the spouses and their children"). The non-paraphrasing source issues I raised previously for FN 4 have also not been addressed. "Shift of accepatnace" section (FNs 5 and 6) is still structurally quite close and includes some near-verbatim wording - for example, " A compelling amount of states followed California's lead and now only have no-fault grounds" vs " A significant number of states followed California's lead and now have only no-fault grounds"., or "sets a predetermined period, such as 5 years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault divorce to mutual consent divorce" vs "setting a predetermined period, such as five years, as the basis for the shift from no-fault to mutual consent divorce". In short, this article still has concerning issues from only a partial check. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Economist Robert Rowthorn states that no-fault divorce impairs the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage.[7]" vs "economist Robert Rowthorn argued that no-fault divorce undermines the commitment that is key to the nature of marriage.". Please check all sources before asking me to revisit, as I'm still finding problems here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are still sentences that haven't had their structure changed. Again, looking at article's history here shows which sentence have only had synomym, but not a structure, change. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking better now, but there's still some phrases that are too close:

• "force the parties to think...if a reconciliation is possible" vs "force the parties to think...whether a reconciliation is possible"
• "No-fault divorces are less expensive, easier to obtain, and less stressful on the spouses and their children because they do not require one to prove fault" vs "Because you don't need to prove fault, this kind of divorce is usually less expensive, quicker to complete, and easier on spouses and their children"
• The non-paraphrasing sourcing concerns earlier pointed out for FN 4 remain to be addressed. Also, for FN 5, you've reversed the "some" vs "majority" groups
• "Ira Ellman has focused on and criticized four principal arguments" vs "Ira Ellman has focused on and criticized four principal arguments".

I also note that I don't have access to some of the sources used, but these should also be checked for potential problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC) }}

Hello DYK! All problems were fixed with our page, and the citation box was taken off. --Nas132 (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: four found and fixed.[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A further eight disambiguations have been introduced, see here. Please fix them. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No-fault divorce is currently represented in every state within the United States. "No-fault" should not be italicized. "represented" is not the correct word here, perhaps: "Every state in the United States allows the concept of a no-fault divorce."

   ''In order to obtain a no-fault divorce in some states, the parties will mutually consent to provide information regarding incompatibility or why the marriage partners have changed, grown apart, or have irreconcilable differences. Additionally, in some states, the person's spouse may need to provide similar information in the divorce proceedings. YJr first sentence here states that "the parties will mutually consent", but the next sentence says: "Additionally, in some states, the person's spouse may need to provide similar information in the divorce proceedings." These are contradictory statements.

   If a state requires a separation period, that person may be required to bring a witness to testify that the parties have been living apart for the required amount of time. Which is "that person"?

   Statutes require the parties must live apart for a certain period of time. Time required for the separation would be a consideration of the state where the couple lives. The time limitation is created for the couple to see if they would be able to make an amends. Needs clarification, give examples of the differences between states.

   Every state within the United States participates in some form of "no-fault" divorce Quotes are unnecessary here.

   If the decision by a married couple is made that a no-fault divorce is best, no proof for the divorce is required because they both mutually consent to the divorce Clumsy, could be better explained in good plain English.

   A no-fault divorce is rather conventional vs a fault divorce because it is conditional. Abbreviations such as "vs" should not be used, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

   In the early 70's, California was the first state to segue toward no-fault divorce. I don't think "segue" is the right word here, consider rephrasing. also should be "1970s" rather than "70's"

   The legal system in California chose to terminate all fault grounds for divorce and utilized single no-fault standards making divorce easier and less costly. Surely it was a result of case law, I don't think the "legal system" chose to do anything.

   Some marriages do not last for a very long time and early on, spouses begin to evaluate their marital situation.[11] During the early part of a marriage, one spouse may begin to evaluate the marriage and decide if it would be reasonable to continue with a long term commitment to the other party.[11] During this evaluation period, one should consider no-fault divorce as a possible grounds. [11] As time passes, one spouse in a marriage makes more long-term sacrifices in order to be committed. [11] These sacrifices could include career choices, children, and social life. [11] As one makes more commitment, it becomes more difficult to divorce. [11] Earlier in the marriage, the sacrifices are smaller and a decision for divorce is easier based on mutual consent.[11] Sacrifice can be the cost of change and provides the parties grounds for divorce.[11] appears to be a close paraphrase of the cite.[4]

   Through the surveys it was revealed that 50% of Americans are disappointed with the no-fault divorce and would like to have alterations made to the system making no-fault divorce more difficult for couples who want to attain., poor grammar - attain what?

   According to economist Robert Rowthorn, no-fault divorce can enable couples the ability to lack the commitment toward marriage Again, very poor grammar - unclear.

   Pros and cons: Not a good section title and this whole section is a close paraphrase of the cite.[5] Who is "Ira Elman"

   A fault divorce is a divorce granted on the grounds that one party in the divorce is considered to be at fault of specific wrong doings. Really, this is very poor prose - not "reasonably well written."

   Please get this copy-edited into good plain English. At present it does not pass muster.

   Well lots of changes have been made but the prose is still very poor. Can you not get someone with a good grasp of plain English to copy-edit?

   Some random examples of poor grammar and prose:

   In no-fault divorces a mutual agreement that both parties no longer feel the marriage is worth continuing exists; - makes no sense; Many of the grounds for divorce granted in the United States today took root in the policies dictated by the England of yore. - oh really! - we aren't writing a faux historical novel here; Not long after the U.S. reached independence, though, each colony generally dictated its own acceptable grounds for divorce. - poor usage of commas renders this meaningless.; This constraint came out of the desire to ensure that the bases for divorce be sufficient - "basis", not "bases"

   This is definitely failing on grammar grounds.

   The section Defenses has single sentences and unnecessarily italicization of words. Please read WP:MOS. The whole organization and tone of the article is clumsy, looks like it has been thrown together by committee.

   Please get someone to go through this line by line and copy-edit.

   OK looking today, I see some improvements have been made but there is still a lot of very clumsy and poor prose. A few examples:

   During the next 15 years, the no-fault reform took the lead as other states soon decided to follow.

   Fault divorces are becoming less common today because almost every state now recognizes no-fault divorces.[7] No-fault divorces are more common since no proof of fault is required.[7] They are not as costly, can be completed faster, and can be less stressful on the family members.[7] However, fault divorces are advantageous if a quick divorce is desirable.[7] This type of divorce is granted quickly without the waiting period of no-fault divorces where parties are ordered to live apart for a specific amount of time before the divorce is finalized.[7] Another benefit of a fault divorce is the monetary gain.[7] Proof of the accused party’s wrongdoing may result in the court granting the filing spouse a larger portion of the marital property or increased support and alimony.[7] However, fault divorces are considerably more expensive to obtain than no-fault divorces. Contains an extraordinary amount of repetition.

   Sexual activities with a person of the opposite sex as well as the same sex involving oral sex and other sexual behaviour not necessarily including intercourse constitute adultery is not a complete sentence. You have made this section into a list which is not a good idea at all.

   Basically this looks like a list of phrases and information that you have found in source books and the whole lacks any coherence. It is not reasonably good prose and fails on those grounds alone.

   A lot of unnecessary wikilinking to common words.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources appear reliable, statements adequately cited, no evidence of WP:OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A good overview, no unnecessary trivia

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image File:Sugar Mama Candy.jpg does add anything to the encyclopaedic content, should be removed, the other image is OK.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This needs a thorough copy-edit to be rendered into good plain English, content is good, but the manner of delivery is not. Copy-vios and paraphrases need to be addressed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked for another extension. I will take a look on 29 November and make a final decision then. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

1. If you can't get it into shape by the 29th (tomorrow) I will have to fail this nomination. Don't take that as personal, it is mainly because you don't really have any comprehension of what makes a good article on Wikipedia, which is hardly surprising as i guess most of you have very little editing experience here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   Please consider waiting a few more days. The deadline for this assignment, from my end, is mid-December, and the members of this group are showing activity and trying to improve the prose. Certain things like scheduling with the writing center are beyond one's ability to make happen immediately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   Many problems remain, the prose is still poor, there are several disambiguations that have not been fixed. WP:GAN is not a place to fix up articles, consider addressing the good article criteria before nominating. Peer review might be a better place to get feedback, if that is what you require. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you could consider waiting a few more days that would be great. The example that you gave came from my section, and I will get it done by tonight.--Nas132 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also appreciate another extension. We have found other prose-related issues that need to be resolved, and could use more time to fix them. Thank you. Ntj2 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a meeting scheduled tomorrow with the Writing Center; my hope is that they'll be able to point out the remaining grammar/prose problems. Ntj2 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jezhotwells for all your feedback.. I also wrote on Jezhotwells talk page. --Nas132 (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look at the end of the week. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--Nas132 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please address my suggestions and concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Grounds for divorce regarding close paraphrasing, failed verification, etc. It's been over a week and no progress has been made on my suggestions, which leads me to conclude that I have wasted my time providing that lengthy review. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had the page on my watchlist, but for some reason your comments did not show up as new. I apologize for the delay. The paraphrasing for that one sentence you point out on adultery will be corrected ASAP. Thanks for taking time to review this page. --Naf24 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• And another comment, from the peanut gallery: I was going to suggest a good scrubbing, but Jezhotwells, I see now, already asked for that. Without a real good round of copy-editing (which will involve some editorial choices and consistency in regards to various words and combinations, as noted above by Jezhotwells), this is never going to get promoted. Sorry, but them's the shakes. Finally, chiming in with Cunard: the GA nomination process requires editors and nominators to be involved, to respond, to make reviewers feel like they're doing something worthwhile, that they're not just copy editors. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, thank you for your insight. We are trying our best to provide a page that provides valuable information for all. However, we are college students with crammed scheduling, which often hinders on our response time to fix errors/problems with the page. We will see to it that we make the corrections reviewers suggest in a promptly manner. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Naf24 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No inconvenience. I can't speak for Cunard, but I am a college professor, also with a crammed schedule, and GA reviews take up a lot of time. The less time we spend copyediting the better. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I notice that you revised the caption under the ‘car’ picture. This edit is understandable considering the ambiguity of the previous wording, but I feel like its present phrasing leaves it out of context. Do you think a reworking of the past caption is in order, or should I just include a different pic altogether. Thank you for any insight. Ntj2 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Few comments from me:

• The article is too light on blue links, please add more links to relevant concepts
• the titles of various sections are improperly capitalized, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
• the article seems relatively comprehensive, but I'd like to see a short history section, answering questions such as "where did the very concept of grounds for divorce originate", if it wasn't in the USA, was it adopted from the very first divorce proceeding, and such.

Looks on a path to GA otherwise (that is assuming you'll address various issues raised by the reviewer above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, you have tweny-four hours to knock this into shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jezhotwells!

Thank you for the comments. We have been trying since last Thursday to get someone to review our page that can help us with our grammer. The writing center has been booked. I tried getting an english professor that I had to review the page and he couldn't because he is to busy and our document is to big for him to review at this time. I am trying to get an appointment today at the writing center. I will make sure the examples that you gave will get changed. Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

an appointment opened up today for the writing center. I will keep you posted.--Nas132 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused...is the plural form of 'basis' not 'bases'? Ntj2 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, constraint is singular so I assumed that the subject of the sentence in singular, if it isn't then please rewrite in good plain English. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion, and hope the new version is clearer. To echo Nas132, thanks for the extension/editing suggestions. Ntj2 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also confused... are you saying the whole article sounds clumsy? or just the defense part sounds clumsy? --Nas132 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently it reads very badly throughout. It appears to be a list of random statements thrown together without any without any coherence. There are only three Sociology GAs, so I suggest that you take a look at the good articles in Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Culture and society for some idea of what you should be aiming at. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jezhotwells,

Thank you for the extension! I will take a look at the link that you provided, and make adjustment throughout the next couple of days.--Nas132 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is important that various sections share the same style and flow logically into one another. A collaborative project needs to have at least one editor who ensures that the contribution of various authors fit well with one another, both with regards to logic, and to style. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. I found the writing center helpful. I wish that they would give more than 30 minute sessions so somebody could look over the whole page.--Nas132 (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be a shame if this was to fail on the grounds of grammar. Did any other members of this group tried scheduling an appointment with the writing center? Perhaps you can get some of your colleagues or family members with a good grasp of grammar to read this through. Such help is certainly acceptable in this assignment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Piotr! We have been making changes as a group. We made changes last night, and since the first review for the good article nomination we had the writing center, I had a colleague look it over and she suggested changes, I also had my mom review the page and she suggested changes as well. As I stated earlier we have been talking as a group and have been making changes. Honestly, if we fail this due to grammer issues it will be upsetting to us because our group has worked really hard on this page and we have been trying to take this page to the next level. --Nas132 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've actually read the entire article, I can understand why the reviewers have so emphasized copy-editing... Spellcheck, its grammarcheck hermano, and I have been scouring the page for writing issues, and have found that they are many. We see that wordiness, diction errors, and sentence structure issues abound. I'll be sending out a page detailing some of the improvements that Word has graciously pointed out, but I'm wondering which of us can edit the page to make it read as though there was a singular author? Ntj2 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion would be: all of you. If all of you try to proofread everyone's section, such collaborative effort should make them more similar to one another, and increase chances all issues are fixed. This is how Wikipedia articles are written :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; we'll make sure to do that. Ntj2 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To echo some of the issues the review mentioned: too many blue links to words that shouldn't be highlighted (conversely, not enough blue links for words that need them? Also, some of the blue links require disambiguation); the article does read like a bunch of randomly listed facts, rather than an encyclopedic entry (maybe we can add intro sections/background/context sentences so that the article will make more sense); prose/grammar problems remain (can anyone get another meeting w/ the Writing Center?). I'd second the Peer Review suggestion, but it seems we can't get one since there's a clean-up banner on the page... Ntj2 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to take a different approach than going to the writing center. The reason why I think we need to take a different approach is because I went to the writing center twice. On my second visit to the writing center I then again made corrections they suggested and the reviewer used my section as an example. Maybe we can meet after next class and talk about this... --Nas132 (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, Noleander has made some really helpful suggestions on how we can improve the article. Take a look at the peer review section to see them. Ntj2 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

separation section

The following section is confusing:

"Separation

Marriage partners who are living apart have grounds for no-fault divorce.[4] Like Louisiana, various states have statutes requiring the parties to live apart from one another for a certain predetermined period of time.[4][18] The reason the time limitation exists is to see if the couple can reconcile.[4] For example, differing from Louisiana, Pennsylvania state law does not permit legal separation.[19]"

Where does the reference to Louisiana suddenly come from? Was it mentioned before?

-KaJunl (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

tone

this seems point-of-view: "If one decides to file a divorce, a no-fault divorce should be taken into consideration.[22]"

-KaJunl (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grounds for divorce (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227100415/http://www.kdlt.com/news/local-news/sd-house-votes-down-unilateral-nofault-divorce-proposal/31488202 to http://www.kdlt.com/news/local-news/sd-house-votes-down-unilateral-nofault-divorce-proposal/31488202

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Divorce in the United States

Seems that the article Grounds for divorce (United States) both contains a lot of information that is redundant to content already found in Divorce in the United States, and most of Grounds for divorce (United States) can be merged into Divorce in the United States#Grounds for divorce. The fact that this seems to be the only split of a country's "divorce" versus "grounds for divorce" subjects, it may be best to combine the two articles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is sensible to merge Grounds for divorce (United States) into Divorce in the United States. Arllaw (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as the current summary/main, parent/child format (WP:SS) seem to work well; the Divorce in the United States#Grounds for divorce is a neat summary and reader can go to the more specialized page for more information. Merging the two would make a rather large single page (approaching 90k) and my view is that if isn't broke', don't fix it. Klbrain (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)