Talk:Reform Alliance (United States)

Where

Reading the lead summary it is not clear where this organization intends to operate or what system it seeks to reform. The lead section needs more geographic information to make it clear whether it is a global or local organisation. The reason it has been tagged as having a POV is because the article assumes a United State perspective, not a global one. This is a form of systemic bias. - 203.96.84.33 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the first line needs to talk about what this organisation does. Describe its structure aims, purpose, methods of engagement and what it seeks to do up front in the active voice. The word commitment should be omitted because this is a Peacock term and suggests an editorial opinion. The organization can say it has a commitment but that is their opinion or claim. Wikipedia can only say that the organization make a claim to be committed to something, because that is factual, not opinion. But it is better to omit the self-promotion entirely and just be factual about what it does. - 203.96.84.33 (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it has independent, reliable sourcing. As the creator of the page, I did not create it to promote the organization, simply to cover its existence. I am willing to work on a rewrite, but can I get an explanation of which parts are overly promotional? --Mukedits (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If it is deleted, I would request that it is instead draftified, so that I can continue working on improving the article until it is ready for publication, although I do not believe it needs to be speedily deleted at this time and feel it meets the notability guidelines. Mukedits (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Mukilteoedits, I have draftified it, as you appear to have some desire to improve it and have had drafts accepted before. That said, it would have been entirely valid to delete this under G11, and it does indeed require a fundamental, ground-up rewrite as that criterion specifies. The issues start in the very first sentence: is an organization committed to probation and parole reform... Not "Committed to". Just say they're a lobbying organization focused on criminal justice reform, not that they're "committed to" something or other. That's straight out of a brochure. Similarly, the next sentence is REFORM also works to address unjust prison sentences across the country. We cannot editorialize by stating in Wikipedia's voice that those sentences are "unjust". You could say "which the organization considers unjust", but make it clear that they, not we, are saying so.

The "founding" session is then written in a "tell me a story" style, and while it says who founded it, it wouldn't even answer one fundamental question—when was it founded? So while it's okay to say it was founded as a reaction to Meek Mill's threat of incarceration, go much heavier on facts and lighter on story from there. This section also contains an instance of far too too close of paraphrasing, with the article text In January 2019, Rubin, and Meek Mill founded REFORM Alliance alongside Kraft, Jay-Z, Novogratz, Clara Wu Tsai, and Daniel Loeb, who pledged a combined $50 million to the organization. and source text including Jay-Z, Robert Kraft, Clara Wu Tsai, Daniel Loeb and Michael Novogratz, who have pledged a combined $50 million to this effort. In the next section, when is "present"? Would that still be true five years from now? Ten? Fifty? So say "2019-2021", not "2019-present".

The "Mission" section needs removal entirely; mission statements are inherently promotional and should not be regurgitated in articles.

Next up, The organization works alongside other criminal justice groups to amply their voices. I take it "to amply" is a typo for "to amplify". Leave stuff like that out; just say they work with other organizations in doing lobbying. Also take out the stuff about "Hey! They worked with celebrities!" So what?

Next up: In California, REFORM Alliance works closely with the American Conservative Union, Californians for Safety and Justice, Cut50, and Dream Corps. The only one the cited source mentions is "Cut50"; it does not confirm any of the others. It is also an opinion piece, so is not reliable; fact-based pieces from The Hill are reliable, but at the very top it explicitly disclaims it as opinion. REFORM helped to pass AB 1950, AB 3234, and SB 118. AB 1950 was REFORM Alliance's first major "legislative victory", which REFORM worked on alongside Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove. This is "sourced" to something called "Complex", which in its own words ([1]) ...champions the people, brands and new trends you need to know now and will obsess over next. If by its own admission its purpose is to push stuff, that is an unreliable source and should not be used. So the stuff about REFORM having anything in particular to do with the passage of these bills needs to be sourced to a reliable reference, or removed.

REFORM worked with the Michigan State Legislature to pass SB 1048, SB 1050, and SB 1051, bipartisan probation reform laws which passed on January 4, 2021. One source there is "Complex" again, which as above is unreliable, but Billboard is not bad. That said, the Billboard source only confirms that REFORM advocated the legislation, not that it "worked with the Michigan State Legislature" on it. So that at the very least needs to be toned down to what the source actually confirms, which is only that they were in favor of the legislation.

REFORM fought for HB 77 to create a remote reporting system for people on probation, since people on probation often have to leave work in order to meet with their probation officers. Tone down "fought for". The USA Today piece is opinion, so get rid of that. The CBS piece does confirm that they advocated the Louisiana HB 77 bill, but again, nothing more than that they were in favor of it. Without confirmation that their support substantially mattered, it's probably undue weight to put much emphasis on that.

In 2021, alongside Justice Forward VA, the American Conservative Union, and Faith and Freedom, REFORM worked to pass HB 2038. This cites as reference only the bill itself (which of course says nothing about REFORM), and a press release from PR Newswire. An independent and reliable source would need to confirm the significance of REFORM's involvement there; press releases are of course not independent.

So, the article will require a complete rewrite prior to review by articles for creation. Ensure all sources used are both reliable and independent, and stick strictly to neutrally presenting only facts that those references explicitly verify. The article must neither support nor denigrate any organization's work; it must only neutrally and factually describe it. Whether such work is good, bad, or otherwise is a determination we leave to the reader. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplicated WikiProject banners

While assessing this article I noticed that it had duplicated WikiProject banners for several projects. As a consequence the article was not appearing as a Start class article of unknown importance in the assessment table, where the first listed WikiProject banners suggested it might. Instead, settings from the second duplicate banners partially overrode the settings first or initial banners, resulting in the article being automatically assessed and listed into a place not reflected by the apparent settings of either banner but by the synergy of both banner settings. However, one side effect of the duplicate banners is that the article appears in multiple different categories for assessment purposes because those categories are set by the individual banners used, not the overall automatic assessment. Consequently, I have consolidated the banner settings and eliminated the duplicate banners. Making this change resolves the double counting differences between assessment category counts and automated assessment counts. When editors are adding new WikiProject banners to the talk page it would be prudent to check that there is not an existing WikiProject banner that can be used instead. Unanticipated results can occur if duplicate banners are used, especially if they have different settings. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)