Talk:Nekima Levy Armstrong

Untitled

Why does this subject warrant a bio entry? Avocats (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Broadly? Because she fulfills WP:GNG. Specifically? She's a prominent voice in Minnesota activism. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nekima Levy-Pounds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 01:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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.	Two changes I might suggest: Some very long sentences, like the second sentence of the lead, and the sentence about dismissed charges in the activism section. Consider breaking up. I might reorganize the "teaching and activism" section. They're obviously related, but the current flow is somewhat awkward - bounces back and forth from a grabbag of worthy projects, to writing, to a detailed examination of her protests, to awards, back to detailed account of NAACP activism, to the mayoralty. Subheadings for the protests and mayoralty might particularly help. I don't think either of these are enough to block GA, but please consider them. (I'm happy to address the first one myself, if you'd like; the second is a bit tougher without a complete rewrite, which I may not have time for any time soon.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Generally compliant. One nitpick: if she "formerly" preached "every other month", does her role as preacher merit a mention in the lead? See discussion of roles in WP:BLPLEAD.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	I might move citation 1 (a primary source) to External Links, or after the first two citations. Not a violation per se, given that it is supported by the other secondary source citations, just somewhat awkwardly structured.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.	There are some negative comments in this citation ("too divisive", etc.) I don't want to require WP:FALSEBALANCE, which may be what that the Star Tribune article is doing, but if other sources also echo the S-T's critiques, they might be worth including under an expanded section on the mayoral campaign.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Not GA issues per se, but would be nice if second caption identified what march she was in, and had an alternative description for accessibility.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'd like to see the big issues here addressed before GA.

Thanks for the review, LuisVilla! I've responded to your concerns below:

• 1a: I know I tend to write long sentences; I've trimmed some down and hope that even if there are long ones left, they are coherent and not run-on. I've also reorganized and tried to chronologize Career (formerly Teaching and activism) section. Let me know if you think it reads better this way!

I think it does; that's subjective of course :)

• 1b: Removed "preacher" from the lead.

Thanks. I wrestled a bit with this one, since it does seem to be part of her self-identification, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in the sources relative to her many other roles.

• 2c: I've replaced the document, which I now see was not recommended for use as a source in a BLP, with another that cited her birthdate.

Great.

• 4: I added a sentence in. It feels a little crystal ball-ish but if you're okay with it, I am.

It isn't ideal? Like I said, I think the paper is trying to do the "both sides said" thing, but feels like we should at least nod towards some controversy if it exists. I expect this will need to be watched as the mayoral campaign develops.

• 6b: March identified. The second image already had alt text.

Weird, don't know why the alt wasn't showing up here.

Thanks again, and let me know if there are any other changes you'd like to see! All the best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks great - thanks for the hard work! —Luis (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

some very close paraphrasing?

Bobamnertiopsis: Unfortunately this wasn't pointed out before I gave the GA review, but the copyvio detection tool is unhappy with the relationship of the article and a school press release. Most of the issues seem like false positives to me, but a few jumped out as problematic - was hoping you could fix?

• "stated she hopes to increase youth engagement with the NAACP during her tenure"
• "cofounded Brotherhood Inc., an organization dedicated to helping young African American men stay away from gang activity and prison"
• "In her research, she focuses on the War on Drugs, incarceration, mandatory sentencing and sentencing guidelines, primarily as they affect women and children of color but also young black men."

Thanks. —Luis (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, LuisVilla, thanks for pinging me about this. I was surprised to see this message because I hadn't ever seen the linked source before. Luckily, it's dated: January 24, 2016. If you check the most recent revision of Levy-Pounds's article prior to that date (December 23, 2015), you can see that all of that text is already in our article, suggesting it originated here, with us, instead of the other way around. No change needed, I'd argue. Thanks for pointing this out! Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hah! Good catch. I'll point it out to the GA review mentor who pointed it out to me :) Happy editing!—Luis (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Liz Collins new book “They’re Lying”

It’s appropriate to add Liz Collins rebuttal of the events Nekima was present at in 2020. To hide them from the public is pure censure and a false witness. 2806:2F0:8102:7:98B:7F:950F:2DBF (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)