Talk:Minimum Foundation Program

Minimum Foundation Program has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 24, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).

Comment

Cool Article. My only change might be to putting the current legislation and current development pieces closer to the top of the article, like right after the portion that defines what the MFP is and have the history and specific details about how the program works following. That way, people can know why they are reading this article / why they should care.

173.253.150.193 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(This is by Allen BTW. I think I forgot to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.253.150.193 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing is very spot on - your grammar and organization is phenomenal. As far as suggestions go I would move your second introductory paragraph, more particularly the information about the 2010-2011 MFP formula, into your section titled Per Student Spending. Also, with this particular topic there are several large dollar amounts and numbers that coincide with various dates - perhaps a simple table added into the page with the year, the MFP formula for that year, and the total money allocated/spent would help make the information a little more user-friendly.

Also, I am not sure if any discussion of the MFP has occurred in the current Extraordinary Special Session on the budget, but, it might be nice to have a recent developments section that would track what is currently happening to the program with so many budget cuts being tossed around.

Your topic is very interesting and you've truly done a great job researching!

Erinfhymel (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Recomendations

I do not feel well rounded enough to do a read review. Here are my recommendations:

I)Add page numbers to reference 1 (Tulane University, n.d.) for each time you use it as a source
II) There shouldn't be a space between the full stop and the reference tag
III) Get a good friend to look over it for spelling and grammar. (or check out these nice people)

In all its a great article

cheers --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

The lede section should not have any references as it shouldn't introduce new information. Rather, it should summarize the entire article. I suggest moving them down and ensuring the lede properly summarizes the article without introducing new information. Basket of Puppies 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Minimum Foundation Program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Guerillero | My Talk 03:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has jumped on this yet I will do the review. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:37, 30 April 2011 (U

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The use of abbreviations Done Currently, there is a one sentence paragraph. It needs to be integrated into another paragraph or be expanded. Done The word however is used to connect two sentences. (For example: We went to the park; however, it rained.) Done Please watch weasel words. However, many use the term "MFP" to refer specifically to the portion the state pays per student to each school district Done There are several fragments that need to be full sentences. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs to summarize the whole article not just introduce it. Done The hyphens(-) should be dashes. (I will do this with AWB) Done References should come directly after a full stop (.). Done
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference 1 should use page numbers. Reference 8 should link to the specific report used not just the directory. Done should also use page numbers. There should be references after each point on the numbered list not before it Done
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	see above
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	One author
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Could any files be implemented?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	You have 10 days to work on this. Best of luck. --Guerillero \| My Talk 04:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot says that this article has been on hold for 20 days now, and there appears to have been no activity on the review page for a week. It looks like nearly everything has been ticked off the list. While WP:There is no deadline, I'd like to have this wrapped up before long, if that's reasonably possible. If you need help, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sourcing issue. Two PDFs are used as the backbone sourcing of the article. The issue is that page number aren't used; most citation style require this. After that happens I will pass this --Guerillero | My Talk 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the Good article criteria do not require complete/consistent/ideal citations, so I don't think that I would fail an article over a failure to provide page numbers (assuming, importantly, that the absence of page numbers didn't prevent me from figuring out whether the content was actually in the source). But I agree that it would be preferable to have the page numbers included for any book or pdf that's more than a few pages long, so I hope that someone will add them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

per the above discussion I will pass this. Since the nominator appears to not be active I will roll up my sleeves and do some work. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article edits

Guerillero-- The only abbreviation I saw other than "MFP" was "SPS," but I changed that one. Do I need to use "Minimum Foundation Program" throughout? Most people in Louisiana refer to it as "MFP," but I'm not sure what Wikipedia protocol is on that. The only fragments I saw were part of a list after a colon. Did I miss some? Is the lede now enough of a summary? Do I have too many citations in it? I also didn't see any references that weren't after a full stop. Maybe someone changed them? I didn't have any files, but I will be adding an explanatory video about the actual math of the formula soon. Thanks for the suggestions. Emilyhholden (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it has been three days. Umm. It seems that most of my MOS issues were resolved by AWB. Each time you cite either of the PDFs you need to include the page that that fact come from. That is my only major issue cheers. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Louisiana State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]