Talk:Minorities Research Group

Minorities Research Group was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 10, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
April 22, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Peer review

The peer review request above isn't complete, just FYI. IvoShandor 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it since it went to GA review anyway. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

I have put this article's GA nomination on hold for 2 to 7 days. If you feel the issues and notes that will be posted below cannot be addressed within that time frame notify me on my talk page and I will fail the article and you can renominate it later. The notes will be posted soon, thanks for your patience. IvoShandor 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes/issues

Prose etc.:

The lead should represent a stand alone summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD.
Need copyediting, there is an error in the very first sentence.
Listy section should be converted to prose and merged elsewhere (Notable people sections are generally vandal magnets, and should probably be avoided as much as possible).
Make sure you are providing adequate context for the average reader. Example follows.

In spite of how the Dilys Rowe article would be viewed in the present day

This sentence provides inadequate context for anyone unfamiliar with its subject. I have no idea what the Dilys Rowe paper is.

Don't use bold in the article text save for the title in the intro.
Use quotation marks instead of italics for quotes.
If you keep subsections in the history section, try not to use articles such as a, an or the in the headers.
Attribute the quote in the intro in text, introduce the source.
Individual years need not be linked, link full dates, like so [[March 13]], [[2014]].

Structure/Focus:

The article appears to veer off into non notable trivia, the specifics in the "In the media" section are a bit much as well.
Consider merging several key sections, like media and Esme and "The end" into a history section, then put that section first.

Broadness

Lack of adequate history section makes that aspect of the article choppy at best.
Consider talking about the other founders as you have Esme.
What was the overall significance of the group in the broader picture? Consider adding a "Significance" or similar section.
Politically, how active was the group? What did they accomplish? What did they do?
Why is this group important? (how did it affect/influence other groups)

NPOV

Was there any opposition to this group?

References

For your Gardner source, you use her enough that it would be appropriate to introduce and qualify her upon the first use of her book as a source.
The Reference articles section doesn't require prose, unless these are notes on sources, then they should be included as footnotes not a separate section. If the articles in that section is meant to be further reading, break it into a Further reading section and add full citations for the articles there, with links if possible.
Make sure you carefully read the article and assure that any material that is "likely to be challenged" is appropriately cited inline.
This is just an example of somewhere that needs an inline cite: After the legalisation of Male homosexuality in the UK with the implementation of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 other more political organisations had appeared, such as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality which focuses on equal rights for all homosexuals. These superseded the objectives of Minorities Research Group and helped bring about its demise and evolution.

If I were to give the GA review right now, it would read as follows:

What the GA review would look like

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is well written.
a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Pass/Fail:
a Well written:

b Factually accurate:

c Broad in coverage:

d NPOV:

e Stable:

f Images:

g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor

IvoShandor 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! I will be on the case of MRG over this evening and weekend. Fluffball70 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent. I will look forward to reading and reviewing the results. : ) IvoShandor 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One quick question, I don't see where the 'Need copyediting, there is an error in the very first sentence.' bit is...at all! I'm hoping it's not a confusion between American and British English, i.e Organisation/Organization? As it is about a British organisation, I'm inclined to stick with British grammar and spelling. Fluffball70 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The second sentence: It was founded in response to an article in magazine "Twentieth Century. I had no intention of imposing American English here, I would have used British English if I wrote the article too. Sorry about that. IvoShandor 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing "the" and the mag title should be italicized not in quotations. Good luck with the article : ) IvoShandor 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and make sure you merge any one sentence/really short paragraphs. IvoShandor 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed

On hold expired, concerns not met. IvoShandor 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Langley

The chapter on Esme Langley shold not better go into the article on Esme Langley?--Dia^ 13:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Minorities Research Group. 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:

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) 15:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]