GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
General issues:
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.
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).
which legislators used to maintain the status quo for as long as they could– What status quo were they trying to maintain? Protecting incumbents?
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?
more equal representation– While technically correct, this is a strange wording. I would suggest "greater representation" or something to that effect.
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?
The legislature continued to fail– "continued to" is unnecessary. "The legislature failed to" would be more concise in this case.
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.
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.
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.
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?
one man, one voteis 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.
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.
after the 2000 election after heavily emphasizing– "after" is used twice in this sentence.
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.
ending the six month long legislative saga– "saga" dramatizes this a little bit.
but Democrats vowed to appeal it– Also dramatization.
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.
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:
heavily emphasizingthe importance of controlling the Texas House to prevent gerrymandering?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The article is stable. No content disputes in the page history or the talk page.
All images are Creative Commons or public domain. Captions tell who or what is in each image.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
General issues:
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.
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).
which legislators used to maintain the status quo for as long as they could– What status quo were they trying to maintain? Protecting incumbents?
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?
more equal representation– While technically correct, this is a strange wording. I would suggest "greater representation" or something to that effect.
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?
The legislature continued to fail– "continued to" is unnecessary. "The legislature failed to" would be more concise in this case.
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.
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.
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.
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?
one man, one voteis 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.
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.
after the 2000 election after heavily emphasizing– "after" is used twice in this sentence.
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.
ending the six month long legislative saga– "saga" dramatizes this a little bit.
but Democrats vowed to appeal it– Also dramatization.
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.
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:
heavily emphasizingthe importance of controlling the Texas House to prevent gerrymandering?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The article is stable. No content disputes in the page history or the talk page.
All images are Creative Commons or public domain. Captions tell who or what is in each image.