Jump to content

Talk:Redistricting in Texas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Very nice article. Well-balanced and informative. Keep up the good work.

Onel5969 TT me 12:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Redistricting in Texas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write a review for this article over the next few days so we can see if it meets the WP:Good article criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over the article and checked it against the good article criteria. I've written up my notes below for everything that needs to be addressed before this can be designated as a good article. Overall, it's pretty close. Most of the issues are just minor quibbles about wording. Feel free to reply to any point if there's something that needs clarification or if you have any comments about any of the suggested changes. For now, I'll put the review on hold so you have the opportunity to address the issues that I've raised. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I'd recommend finding a source for federal regulation of districts and maybe more context for the drawing of district boundaries, but really the only things that needs to be addressed before the good article designation is that it sometimes requires a double check to see whether it's a state or federal legislature being referred to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now comfortable saying that the current state of the article meets all of the good article criteria. I still encourage any further improvements, but I'm going to designate it as a good article now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written

General issues:

  • Wikipedia uses logical quotation style, with punctuation on the outside of quotation marks. It was a simple fix so I did it myself, but it's something to note.
  • This article talks about both federal and state legislatures, which means it's really easy to confuse them. Try to specify U.S. House and Senate when talking about the federal legislature and state House and Senate or Texas House and Senate when talking about the state legislature.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the subsections are a bit long. I'd suggest breaking up the longest ones, either by creating new subsections or by using more of the smaller level four headings.
     Comment: Would you suggest using a lower level heading for every section of a decade that talks about state legislative redistricting? I usually try to make those discussions the last paragraph of a section, but I didn't want to use subheadings because I wasn't sure if it would be good to have them all be the same. There are definitely some I could come up with to split off, though. OutlawRun (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of discretion with something like subheadings. The main concern is readability and making sure the reader isn't bogged down. The way you have it set up now looks good, but any layout is fine as long as the information is organized in some logical fashion and it's easily accessible for the reader. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues:

  • as long as each district contains roughly equivalent numbers of people (see Baker v. Carr, Wesberry v. Sanders, and Reynolds v. Sims) – a see also parenthetical is a bit distracting. You might also consider finding a source that covers the requirements of districts for this paragraph.
     Comment: Parenthetical removed. It was left over from when I borrowed some structural things from Redistricting in Wisconsin. Will try to find a good source for requirements soon. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • who then use a computer program to draw district boundaries – It's unclear what is meant by "use a computer program". Does the program algorithmically determine possible district boundaries? Do legislators take a jpeg of Texas and put it in Microsoft Paint? And when was the use of a computer program adopted (I doubt that's how they did it in 1876).
     Comment: I re-worded the sentence to make it clearer how the program is used, but I cannot remember exactly when they started using it. I think it was either in the 70s or 80s. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "history" should probably be in a subsection. It's okay to have the occasional one paragraph subsection, and it's okay for a section to go straight into subsections without an opening paragraph.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which legislators used to maintain the status quo for as long as they could – What status quo were they trying to maintain? Protecting incumbents?
     Done. Yes. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bill that eventually passed moved Colorado County to the 9th district – What was the result of this? Did they stifle the African American vote as they intended?
     Done. Seemingly, although other state laws also did this, too. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • more equal representation – While technically correct, this is a strange wording. I would suggest "greater representation" or something to that effect.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • although they temporarily returned to vote to prevent the release of W. H. Gray before leaving again – Who is W. H. Gray, and is he relevant?
     Done. He is not relevant, so I removed the direct mention of him. It is only relevant that they returned for an unrelated vote. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legislature continued to fail – "continued to" is unnecessary. "The legislature failed to" would be more concise in this case.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas would not redraw its congressional districts until 1957. Texas had gained one seat – Try to avoid starting two sentences in a row with the same word. It can read awkwardly.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Republicans also saw the consolidation of the 12th district into Tarrant County as a chance for them to win that district, too – "Too" seems informal, especially when put off into its own clause.
     Done. Replaced with "as well." OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Texas Legislature and the Democratic Party had exercised unfettered control over the redistricting process for decades, this would soon come to an end with the rise of the civil rights movement and the passage of federal voting rights legislation. – Foreshadowing isn't necessary in Wikipedia articles.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1963, Republican George H. W. Bush sued the state – Why was Bush involved in this? I understand Bush worked as a Republican Party operative at this time, was it in this capacity that he sued? Or was it just a personal whim he had one day?
     Done. I don't think the sources explicitly state that it was in his capacity that he filed the suit, but they mention him as being the chair at the time, so I think that heavily implies that it was in that capacity. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • one man, one vote is used a few times, but it's never clearly defined. Make it clear what this means and where it comes from the first time it's used.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The civil rights era section talks about floterial districts, but it doesn't define what that means. I'm having trouble following the sequence of events in this paragraph overall.
     Done. Defined floterial districts and moved a sentence around to try to produce better flow. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The District Court had also ruled against the Texas Legislature's incumbency protection justification – This is written as if the reader is supposed to be familiar with this, but this is the first time it's mentioned in the article.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the 2000 election after heavily emphasizing – "after" is used twice in this sentence.
     Done. Also removed the word "heavily". OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use acronyms such as LRB and MALDEF without defining them first, and use them consistently. Either spell out Legislative Redistricting Board each time, or write it as "Legislative Redistricting Board (LRB)" the first time it's mentioned and then use LRB every time after. It's not too long of a phrase, so I personally would spell it out (though "the board" is fine if it's clear what board is being discussed).
     Done. Used "the board" instead. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Democrats had won a victory with the state's congressional districts, it would be short-lived, – This seems a bit dramatized as it's written.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ending the six month long legislative saga – "saga" dramatizes this a little bit.
     Done. Replaced with "redistricting process." OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • but Democrats vowed to appeal it – Also dramatization.
     Done. Replaced with "intended to." OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Mexican American Legislative Caucus is currently arguing in MALC v. Abbott – Avoid using "currently" for things that are subject to change. It would be better to say something like "the Mexican American Legislative Caucus filed a case in 2021", because that will stay true even after the case ends.
     Done. OutlawRun (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable with no original research

The sources generally look reliable. There are a lot of primary sources used as citations. Citing the laws and court cases themselves isn't disallowed, but it's good practice to cite a secondary source that talks about them and explains why they're relevant. Similarly, retrospective sources that summarize the topic are better than newspapers that were published at the time. It's fine as it is for the good article criteria, but you'd need to find more secondary sources if you wanted to nominate it as a featured article later on. The primary/secondary source distinction might also be worth keeping in mind on future articles, as good secondary sources make much better writing in the long run.

Spotchecks to ensure that the article accurately reflects the sources and does not contain copyright violations:

  • [2] Rodriguez (2022) – Good.
  • [47] New York Times (1933) – This doesn't support the sentences preceding it. Is it in the right place?
     Done. This was my original citation for the section before I found more information from the Dallas Morning News on exactly what happened. It simply states that the redistricting passed. I do not think it is necessary anymore. OutlawRun (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [67] New York Times (1962) – Good.
  • [100] Curry (1978) – Good.
  • [121] Edsall (1991) – Mostly good, though I don't see anything saying that District 18 was the majority-Black district.
     Done. Added another source to the end from later in the article that explicitly states that District 18 was majority-black. OutlawRun (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [143] Ramsey (2000) – Mostly good, but does this source support that Democrats were heavily emphasizing the importance of controlling the Texas House to prevent gerrymandering?
     Done. You're right. I rewrote the sentence to better reflect what the two sources actually say. OutlawRun (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [150] Esall (2001) – Good.
  • [176] Ramsey (2010) – This source doesn't really support anything preceding it except that a party switch happened.
     Done. These sources were copied over from my writing on the page for the 2010 Texas House of Representatives election. There, they are a necessary supplement to explain the supermajority that Republicans gained, but here, the supermajority is not important in and of itself, just the large gains, so I will remove it. OutlawRun (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [191] Prokop (2018) – Good.
  • [208] Chung (2022) – Good.
Broad in its coverage

Overall, there's a lot of information here, and it gets a bit into blow-by-blow sequences of events. This in itself isn't terrible, but it does create the risk of adding minor details that are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. For the most part this is just something to keep in mind, but there's one issue that should be addressed. The council created two possible maps, each giving Harris County three districts, Dallas County two, and Tarrant and Bexar Counties one, with all but Harris County also containing parts of other districts in a manner similar to the "county line rule." Does it matter what the specific counties were and how they were allotted? This whole paragraph has a lot of detail about how some of the individual counties were sorted into districts.

  •  Done. I have made the specific section you pointed out a lot less overly-specific and a lot more concise. I will keep an eye out for other stuff like this in the article. OutlawRun (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

There are a few examples of opinions being stated as fact or not being attributed. Opinions should be attributed in text so the reader knows whose opinions they are.

  • Democratic State Senator Eddie Bernice Johnson chaired the redistricting subcommittee and drew maps with the intention of creating a minority-majority district in Dallas for herself to run in. This is the opinion of the authors, and we cannot present this as a fact, especially since Johnson is still alive and therefore subject to the stricter standards on biographies of living people.
     Done. I removed the note about her drawing it for herself to run in, as well as the note for the same thing with Barbara Jordan in the 70s. I think we can reasonably present as fact that Johnson intended to create a minority-majority district in Dallas, as she is quoted as saying basically that in one of the sources. OutlawRun (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The maps that passed were widely criticized as racial and partisan gerrymanders designed to keep Republicans in power and reduce the voting power of minorities. – Criticized by whom? We can't say that something was widely criticized unless we have reliable sources that say it was widely criticized. Based on the current sourcing, it would be more accurate to say "Math for Unbiased Maps TX and two people from the Brennan Center criticized the maps", but that's not terribly helpful. I suggest finding secondary sources that report on the controversy instead of individual primary source opinions and redoing this paragraph based on those.
     Comment:. I make this claim both in the lede and in the paragraph near the end. I intended the four citations on the "95% of the state's growth" claim to also apply to the gerrymandering claim. The sources on this claim include the Dallas Morning News and FiveThirtyEight. I have altered the wording to say that "many have criticized the maps," and I think that my array of sources backs up and fits with that wording. OutlawRun (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would still be good to have a source that talks about the criticism instead of just the criticism itself, but that gets back to the primary/secondary source thing, and this should be sufficient. Also, this is purely a cosmetic suggestion, but know that there are a few formatting options for when several citations are in one place, if you're interesting in using them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to Texas' long history of racial and partisan gerrymandering, many have called for the establishment of an independent redistricting commission for the state. – Same issue, where there either needs to be a source talking about the controversy, or the opinion needs to be attributed.
     Done. I suppose if you've read this far in the article, readers will have come to their own understanding about whether they think Texas has a history of gerrymandering and to what extent. I nixed the gerrymandering part of the sentence to start it simply with the mention of the calls for independent commissions. OutlawRun (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerrymandering is potentially a contentious term. Avoid describing an act of redistricting as gerrymandering unless there is strong sourcing identifying it as such or it's used as part of an attributed opinion. It should probably be changed from the subheadings at Gerrymandering for prohibition (1910s) and Final Democratic gerrymander (1990s), and it should be changed at or to gain political advantage through gerrymandering, as was the case in 2003 after Republicans took full control of the Texas Legislature. The subheadings Republican takeover (2003) and Stifling a Democratic resurgence (2020s) should probably also be changed, as they use similarly strong wording.
     Done. I have edited the headings to remove strong accusation-type things. On the mentioning of the 2003 redistricting being a gerrymander, I just tacked on a reference to the entirety of Bickerstaff's 2007 book on the 2003 redistricting, because the point of the book is to explain how that gerrymander worked and that it was a partisan gerrymander. I feel like that should be enough. OutlawRun (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stable

The article is stable. No content disputes in the page history or the talk page.

Illustrated

All images are Creative Commons or public domain. Captions tell who or what is in each image.

  •  Comment:. I am trying to see if I can get more images of the congressional maps themselves to use sporadically throughout the page, but I am making sure that I have the right licensing to use them, first. OutlawRun (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by OutlawRun (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 01:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Redistricting in Texas; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Made a couple copyedits to the hook. Otherwise fantastic work on this! Reywas92Talk 01:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redistricting_in_Texas&oldid=1204864358"