Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States)/GA1

GA Review

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

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.[reply]

Disambiguations: four found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Checking against GA criteria

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

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.[2]

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.[3] 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.
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
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
A good overview, no unnecessary trivia
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]