![]() | Open Philanthropy has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 15, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Open Philanthropy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
![]() | A fact from Open Philanthropy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 September 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Hi, an earlier version of this article had been merged with the GiveWell entry, back when Open Phil was still part of GiveWell. Now that Open Phil is a separate organization (with different staff, legal structure and office space) I think it makes sense for it to have its own article. In that case, I think the notices above should be removed, since they refer to that earlier version, which is unrelated to the current one (I wrote the article from scratch). What do others think? Pablo Stafforini ( talk) 15:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am working on fixing the notices (too much reliance on primary sources and needs more citations). Ruthgrace ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Open Philanthropy (organization)/GA1
I removed this point from the list of criminal justice reform grants due to not having a good citation (one is from an unreliable source, New York Post, and the other is written by the program officer). Noting here in case a better citation is found for it to be added back
References
The result was: promoted by
CSJJ104 (
talk)
20:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Ruthgrace ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Article meets eligibility criteria - was recently promoted to a good article. Meets length expectations. No issues with tone. This is a tricky space because while writing about organizations it is important to maintain a factual and neutral tone which I think this article does. I think this is validated by the other reviewer
Mike Christie's notes as well. On the hook front - I have two concerns and would like to pass back to the nominator for their views. Firstly, my personal read is that the hook reads a tad
WP:PUFF with a starting phrase
that in their mission to do good effectively
. Though one could very well make the argument that their mission is indeed to do good effectively. Nevertheless, I would encourage the nominator to consider rewriting that bit or maybe even consider dropping that bit. Secondly, I have seen DYK reviewers request that the hook be present in the article as-is or as close to the actual sentence as possible. In this case the phrases are indeed used across the article e.g. Grants include $6.4 million to Stephen Johnston and his team at Arizona State University to test a cancer vaccine for middle-aged pet dogs
and the organization expects that the value of preventing recessions will be so many times higher than the cost of effective advocacy work that it is willing to invest in it despite success being "highly uncertain"
. The sourcing looks good. QPQ is done.
Ktin (
talk)
18:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
To add to the infobox: the number of employees. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 23:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Open Philanthropy has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 15, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Open Philanthropy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
![]() | A fact from Open Philanthropy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 September 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Hi, an earlier version of this article had been merged with the GiveWell entry, back when Open Phil was still part of GiveWell. Now that Open Phil is a separate organization (with different staff, legal structure and office space) I think it makes sense for it to have its own article. In that case, I think the notices above should be removed, since they refer to that earlier version, which is unrelated to the current one (I wrote the article from scratch). What do others think? Pablo Stafforini ( talk) 15:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am working on fixing the notices (too much reliance on primary sources and needs more citations). Ruthgrace ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Open Philanthropy (organization)/GA1
I removed this point from the list of criminal justice reform grants due to not having a good citation (one is from an unreliable source, New York Post, and the other is written by the program officer). Noting here in case a better citation is found for it to be added back
References
The result was: promoted by
CSJJ104 (
talk)
20:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Ruthgrace ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Article meets eligibility criteria - was recently promoted to a good article. Meets length expectations. No issues with tone. This is a tricky space because while writing about organizations it is important to maintain a factual and neutral tone which I think this article does. I think this is validated by the other reviewer
Mike Christie's notes as well. On the hook front - I have two concerns and would like to pass back to the nominator for their views. Firstly, my personal read is that the hook reads a tad
WP:PUFF with a starting phrase
that in their mission to do good effectively
. Though one could very well make the argument that their mission is indeed to do good effectively. Nevertheless, I would encourage the nominator to consider rewriting that bit or maybe even consider dropping that bit. Secondly, I have seen DYK reviewers request that the hook be present in the article as-is or as close to the actual sentence as possible. In this case the phrases are indeed used across the article e.g. Grants include $6.4 million to Stephen Johnston and his team at Arizona State University to test a cancer vaccine for middle-aged pet dogs
and the organization expects that the value of preventing recessions will be so many times higher than the cost of effective advocacy work that it is willing to invest in it despite success being "highly uncertain"
. The sourcing looks good. QPQ is done.
Ktin (
talk)
18:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
To add to the infobox: the number of employees. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 23:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)