Talk:Hawaii House Bill 444/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be doing the GA Review on this article. H1nkles (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

First concern

My first concern that I see with the article are dead links in the reference section. Link #'s 4, 6, 7, and 12 are dead. That's concerning for an article that should be fairly current.

I archived the AP stories but had no idea the Honolulu Advertiser stories would disappear as well. I found them cached and added them - I will try to archive them seperately with webcitation, but the website shows an error for me at the moment. Hekerui (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's good all the links are solid now.

Lead

The lead is fine, it would be good to insert a sentence about the rallies held in support and opposition to the bill.

Agreed.

Content of the bill

This section is fine as well. No concerns.

History

I do have some concerns about this section.

• I don't think think "History" is the right name for this section. There is a brief mention of the history of the same-sex marriage movement in Hawaii, which I think is on topic and would be great info to expand. But then it delves into a completely different subject on the legislative process, I think this should be moved into its own section.

• I seperated this. The bills were never about marriage, though.

• The section appears to cover a couple of different topics, one being the process of the bill going through the legistlature and the second being a brief indication of the controversy the bill generated. From a content perspective I'd like to see this section broken into two, one being the legislative process, which is fairly developed, the second being the controversy that the bill created, which is very undeveloped and should be expanded. Given the controversial nature of this topic I'm sure there is more information on the people's reaction to the bill, both while it was being debated, and then when it was defeated.
• "The Senate Democratic leadership stated the bill might be taken from committee and brought to a debate before the full Senate,[5] which was possible after March 10, 2009,[6] but following a rally held on February 22, 2009, that opposed the passage of H.B. 444 and in which between 2,000 and 6,000 people participated,[4][7] a number of Democratic senators became unwilling to vote in favor of the motion, citing concerns about changing common Senate procedure,[8] and the number of senators supporting civil unions was reduced from 18 to 13 out of 25 senators" this is a looong run on sentence that should be chopped up into smaller sentences.

• I split this in two sentences.

• "JGO", please spell out the abbreviation.

• It is spelled out when it first appears.

• Sorry I must have missed it.

• The article discusses a rally of opposition to the bill while the image is of a rally supporting the bill. This is another indication of the controversy this bill generated and that should be outlined better in the article.

• I added that.

Overall Review

Primarily my concern is over the structure of the article and the content of the article. I feel that more could be added to the history of same sex marriage (while still maintaining a summary style), as well as to the controversy of the bill and how this controversy played out. The legistlative process is very well established and little work needs to be done to that section. Also the dead references will need to be repaired. I will hold the article for a week pending work and then check in at that time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are making improvements. Is there enough information to create a sub-section on the controversy this bill created? I note in the pro-bill rally there were members of the clergy and unions there in support of same-sex marriage. The other reference is more about the bill than the controversy but there is some info in there. BTW that cite says the anti-bill rally was 6,000 to 8,000 people, the article says 2,000 to 6,000. You may want to double check that. I think to be comprehensive it would be good to expand on the controversy (even creating its own sub-section), not just talking about the two rallies but about the rhetoric and conflict this bill created. You can quote some of the key figures if you'd like. I know this creates a bit more work but it would seem to better cover the subject. Your thoughts? H1nkles (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are we at with this article? I'd like to make a decision on it. I feel that more could be added to satisfy the comprehensive part of the GA Criteria. I'm open to discussion on that topic though. I'll extend the hold to the 18th. H1nkles (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the week is over already! I will add reactions soon, have just been researching something else. Thanks for the extension. Hekerui (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem just keep me posted. H1nkles (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Aloha! I added a reactions section. Hekerui (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Great the section looks fantastic and really adds to the article. It will be my pleasure to pass it. Thanks for the hard work. H1nkles (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)