Talk:Hilda Solis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will do a review of this article for its good article nomination, but it will take time - it's a lot to go over. Hekerui (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm finally done with the a copyedit. I removed stuff not found in citations, a few irrelevant things and abbreviations, replaced some broken links and put imaged to the right according to the guidelines. I also added some stuff like personadata and used a few neat templates. I have some comments and suggestions left about the article:

I think "she" should be now and then be replaced with "Solis", especially after new headings such as "Early career"

Agreed and done.

The leftover fact tags should be addressed.

All done. In some cases election results were corrected once official results were found and cited. Regarding the El Monte Busway controversy, I expanded and cited that, since there was a fair amount of attention to it at the time. However, I moved it out of the H of R section and into the Ca State Leg section. The editor who had originally added it claimed that the full scope of the busway mess wasn't yet known at the time of the March 2000 primary (and that presumably helped her win); however, the January 22 LAT story that I cited makes it clear that the traffic situation became awful right away, and Solis was already identified as the major proponent of the change, so it was no secret to voters. Thus the material belongs with the other State Senator material, not with the H of R material.

Some sections and paragraphs are too short.

I don't see any short sections at this point. As for paragraphs, they are supposed to represent a coherent piece of material. If that piece happens to be long, short, or medium, so be it, I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, there's a theory that mixing up long and short paragraphs helps keep text visually interesting. The John McCain article has many short paragraphs, and made FA using this technique.

It could be added when she married Sayyad, if possible.

I wish! I've spent a lot of time searching online for this and have never found it. Also can't find out what the "L" stands for in her middle name. Those are the two biggest outstanding biographical mysteries ...

I removed the pixel width from her image, because it's better for individual configurations to not specify it, I think.

OK.

I can't find the sources for her service times in the state legislature. If there are none, the years from the congressional biography should be used.

It's safe to assume she started at the same time as all the other assemblypeople and senators. But I don't know where there's something that gives those term dates.

Perhaps in the Cali constitution but it's not so important, I changed it.

East Los Angeles should be disambiguated.

Done.

The San Gabriel Valley Tribune link can't be accessed anymore (moved into archive, payment required), the url should probably be removed. I could access the text by finding it over google to verify the content. However, one could let the link remain and put "subscription required" in (I don't know how that works).

I've changed the cite to point to a paywall archive link for the story, and added "fee required" to the format.

I changed her mother's work time to "over 20 years" because the Congress text says 22 years, Solis' HuffPost text says 25 years and in the attached video from the House floor she says both 20 and 25 years (!). If you have a better solution, please change it.

"Over 20 years" is fine with me.

Perhaps one could mention her move to Washington D.C. right at the start of "early career"? Otherwise it's quite abrupt. (It's in the source "Solis Prepares to Take Another Step Up")

I haven't been this explicit, because the exact chronology here isn't quite clear. Did she return to California after her Carter administration internship and before her Reagan administration stint? Was her 1981 graduation from USC with MPA degree before or after the Reagan administration stint?

What does "The Almanac of American Politics" contribute as a cite for the Office of Management and Budget-sentence? I see everything covered. Perhaps remove?

Doesn't even mention it – my bad. I've removed it.

The Statement on Solis not having other interests was made by Smith with regard to their joint service during the early 1980s, I think that's a little tenuos for extending it to the present, so I removed it.

Good point.

Did she give $15,000 or $50,000? The two cited sources state different numbers. Perhaps find another source or leave it at $15,000 just in case.

Good catch. This google search shows several sources supporting the $50,000 figure (a couple are behind paywalls, but you see enough of them in the search hit; one appears to be written by Solis herself). The equivalent search for $15,000 doesn't provide as compelling sources, so we should go with $50,000. I've made the change and adjusted the citing.

the source <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/deal.html|date=2006-11-09|title=House Dems strike leadership deal|publisher=''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]''}}</ref> with the story about her running for the position of Democratic Caucus Vice-Chairman is gone, perhaps find a replacement or remove the content. If I read that wrong, please restore.

I found a cached version of the article, restored the cite with that as url.

When it comes to sourcing her committee assignment and the subcommittees, I can barely find main committees in THOMAS (only here and here) - I would suggest leaving it like it is, this is no major issue.

The main assignments are all sourced by a WaPo story used as a source for the main text paragraph "As congresswoman, Solis was most known for her work on environmental issues as a member of the ..." The DSSC vice chair position is sourced later in the main text. There are sources for some of her subcommittees, for example this CBS News profile sources her being the vice chair of the subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials. But I'm content to leave things as they are too.

Finally, perhaps another photo should be used for her announcement, she looks to the ground and Ron Kirk is just standing there and has nothing to do with her really. How about this one? Even though she is not in the front she at least looks up.

She's not looking down, I think she's speaking from written notes on the lectern. As such it's more of an "action" shot (as much action as these kind of politicos get!) than her watching Obama speak. So I'd stay with the one we have.

I think this is a good article and I intend pass it when the remaining issues are sufficiently addresses. Good work Wasted Time R! Hekerui (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I subsequently made a number of changes in response to the big "copyedit" change Wasted Time R (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Additional comment:

Cites you reinstated are repeated the next sentence later, it's okay but I think not necessary.

The trouble with that approach is, not everyone realizes that the next sentence's cite applies to this one. Or, if they move the first sentence to somewhere else, they don't clone the cite onto the new location. Then someone else sees no cite and sticks on a {{fact}} tag. Then someone else sees the tag hasn't been resolved and deletes the sentence. I've seen this kind of sequence of events happen. Citing every sentence is tedious, yes, but given the way WP articles evolve over time, I think it's the safest way to preserve sourcing.

One could consider removing her mother's birthyear from the article.

I don't have strong feelings on this, but many editors like to see birth-death ranges for parents/ancestors mentioned in BLPs. It seems to me that the 80th birthday comemoration that she read in Congress in 2006 should be the definitive source on this.

Yeah, except that the transcript also falsely states June 5, 1928. However, kept.

"Somewhat weakened measure" is, as far as I can see not in the source and not clear.

Hmm, somewhere I read a description of what the changes were and they equated to "somewhat" on the scale of what happens to legislation in order to get it passed. But now I can't find that, and the two sources I see just say "weaker". So go ahead and change it as you see fit, and if I ever find a more specific description, I'll add it then.

Changed.

"In the wake of" could be considered to be replaced by a more clear statement.

This is accepted English usage, using the effect a boat has moving through the water as a metaphor. Indeed, a Washington Post story used as a cite in the article uses it: "^ Fletcher, Michael A. (2009-02-05). "Solis Senate Session Postponed in Wake of Husband's Tax Lien Revelations". The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/05/solis_senate_session_canceled.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-05." FAC wants to see that "prose is engaging", so there is nothing wrong with using an expression like this.

Okay, perhaps I like it more clinical, but when engaging means writing as in a newspaper article then I stand corrected.

Dissension also means discord, consider using "dissenting votes" or "votes opposed".

The original source I used for this said she had been confirmed "by a voice vote with two dissensions." See this quote here for that language. At the time I wanted to preserve that language, because voice votes may have their own terminology. Since then, all the cites have been shuffled around and the original source, probably Bloomberg News, has been replaced by one on her full Senate confirmation. But I still like 'dissensions', it's livelier than your "approved her nomination by voice vote with two votes opposed." But if this is bugging you, go ahead and change it back.

Changed.

"After still further delays" - I read the source and it was not in it and it only described the process as generally delayed. Hekerui (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just intended to indicate an unusual passage of time between her committee vote (Feb 11) and her full Senate vote (Feb 24). Usually the second quickly follows the first. Here, they were toying with a filibuster, and also didn't act on her nomination before a week's recess. The whole purpose of this part of the section is to set up the coming conflict between the Obama administration and the Congressional Republicans on labor issues. If in a couple of years it turns out there hasn't been any conflict, I'll come back and trim this material down a bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final tally

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Passed! A very good article. Hekerui (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]