This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You just need to make some adjustments to make this look more like a Wikipedia article.
I would get to the point of the illegal immigration in Mississippi as soon as possible in the introduction. You don't need an opening sentence because it's more of an encyclopedia article than a paper or news story. For example: Both houses of the Mississippi legislature are working on legislation allowing law enforcement agents to ask for proof of residency in routine traffic stops in the vein of Arizona's recent controversial immigration laws.
You need some more organization to make this look like a Wikipedia article. Try adding some headings and subheadings and breaking up your paragraphs into much shorter sections.
I would start with a background section to include information about immigration rates. You could put the second paragraph under "Controversy and debate." Then you wouldn't need the introductory sentence, which makes you sound subjective.
I would also create another section for the casino information because it's really a side point.
The last section could be "Mississippi compared to other states."
Remember you can make headings by typing "==HEADING==" and subheadings by typing "===HEADING==="
I also can't see your references. Did you include "== Notes and references ==" and "{ {Reflist} }" (minus those spaces) at the bottom?
Emilyhholden ( talk) 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Allen-- it looks like a good start, but I think you could use a little bit more background information on the history of the issue, how it has affected Mississippi in past years, etc. Maybe start off with some kind of introduction to the issue in general, then move on to legislation and controversy on the subject. Right now, your article assumes that the reader already knows a good deal about illegal immigration, which may not be the case, especially when you reference the laws made in Arizona. I don't know too much about wikipedia, but I've always found that the articles that helped me most were the ones that didn't take for granted that you knew anything about the subject. Maybe you could also link this article to the main wikipedia article on illegal immigration in case the reader wants to go there for more information. Also, I think it would be really helpful to the readers if you split up the article into sections and had titles-- the information isn't quite as accessible without them. Maybe have a background section, a legislation section, and a controversy section? Ashcarv ( talk) 06:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the GA warnings on this page. Please be aware that this will not pass a GAN without a lead section. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles covering immigration anywhere in the United States must stick with statutory law in 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY and case law from US Federal Court Decisions. Those are the only legitimate authorities on the topic of immigration because it has been unconstitutional for states to implement immigration law since 1790.
"Illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are only applicable to someone that has been found guilty of a felony in a court of law.
The correct term to describe a foreign born individual that doesn't have the right documentation is "undocumented". Not "illegal".
People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as "illegal" by US law.
Describing someone as "illegal" because of nationality, appearance, or documentation status - but not because of court conviction - is political activism intended to influence elections.
It is illegal for a charitable organization to engage in political activity in the United States.
The following facts are missing from articles that mention "illegal immigration" and "illegal aliens", which obviously influences voting behavior whether or not that is the intent.
The following facts are also missing from most articles that cover immigration in North America:
The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The non-political terminology is "undocumented tourist" for tourists with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" any time an employer fails to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.
Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued in most counties for lack of funding. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are undocumented. None of those people are "illegal", but many Wikipedia articles imply that they are all criminals.
"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would be non-political if used in a quote citing another source, like this one:
The kind of racist language used in Wikipedia articles mentioning "illegals" is being used to encourage genocidal behavior. That obviously falls in the category of political activism.
Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how "illegal" articles compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.
Remember:
These facts are well known and relevant to all immigration discussions involving North America.
I hope this finds everyone well.
Best Regards, nanoatzin (talk)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You just need to make some adjustments to make this look more like a Wikipedia article.
I would get to the point of the illegal immigration in Mississippi as soon as possible in the introduction. You don't need an opening sentence because it's more of an encyclopedia article than a paper or news story. For example: Both houses of the Mississippi legislature are working on legislation allowing law enforcement agents to ask for proof of residency in routine traffic stops in the vein of Arizona's recent controversial immigration laws.
You need some more organization to make this look like a Wikipedia article. Try adding some headings and subheadings and breaking up your paragraphs into much shorter sections.
I would start with a background section to include information about immigration rates. You could put the second paragraph under "Controversy and debate." Then you wouldn't need the introductory sentence, which makes you sound subjective.
I would also create another section for the casino information because it's really a side point.
The last section could be "Mississippi compared to other states."
Remember you can make headings by typing "==HEADING==" and subheadings by typing "===HEADING==="
I also can't see your references. Did you include "== Notes and references ==" and "{ {Reflist} }" (minus those spaces) at the bottom?
Emilyhholden ( talk) 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Allen-- it looks like a good start, but I think you could use a little bit more background information on the history of the issue, how it has affected Mississippi in past years, etc. Maybe start off with some kind of introduction to the issue in general, then move on to legislation and controversy on the subject. Right now, your article assumes that the reader already knows a good deal about illegal immigration, which may not be the case, especially when you reference the laws made in Arizona. I don't know too much about wikipedia, but I've always found that the articles that helped me most were the ones that didn't take for granted that you knew anything about the subject. Maybe you could also link this article to the main wikipedia article on illegal immigration in case the reader wants to go there for more information. Also, I think it would be really helpful to the readers if you split up the article into sections and had titles-- the information isn't quite as accessible without them. Maybe have a background section, a legislation section, and a controversy section? Ashcarv ( talk) 06:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the GA warnings on this page. Please be aware that this will not pass a GAN without a lead section. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles covering immigration anywhere in the United States must stick with statutory law in 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY and case law from US Federal Court Decisions. Those are the only legitimate authorities on the topic of immigration because it has been unconstitutional for states to implement immigration law since 1790.
"Illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are only applicable to someone that has been found guilty of a felony in a court of law.
The correct term to describe a foreign born individual that doesn't have the right documentation is "undocumented". Not "illegal".
People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as "illegal" by US law.
Describing someone as "illegal" because of nationality, appearance, or documentation status - but not because of court conviction - is political activism intended to influence elections.
It is illegal for a charitable organization to engage in political activity in the United States.
The following facts are missing from articles that mention "illegal immigration" and "illegal aliens", which obviously influences voting behavior whether or not that is the intent.
The following facts are also missing from most articles that cover immigration in North America:
The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The non-political terminology is "undocumented tourist" for tourists with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" any time an employer fails to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.
Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued in most counties for lack of funding. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are undocumented. None of those people are "illegal", but many Wikipedia articles imply that they are all criminals.
"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would be non-political if used in a quote citing another source, like this one:
The kind of racist language used in Wikipedia articles mentioning "illegals" is being used to encourage genocidal behavior. That obviously falls in the category of political activism.
Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how "illegal" articles compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.
Remember:
These facts are well known and relevant to all immigration discussions involving North America.
I hope this finds everyone well.
Best Regards, nanoatzin (talk)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on 16:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)