Talk:Kentucky Education Association

Kentucky Education Association was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 8, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

United States: Kentucky / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment[edit]

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.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia article peer review[edit]

Your article is clear, the organization is relevant and you give a lot of details and references. The lead section is well developed and give a good outline of the article.

Here are my advices:
- In the section "Mission and Vision Statements", I would advice you to write complete sentences.
- In the section "Organization", you should precise the number of elected members in the Delegate Assembly and in the National Education Association representative delegation. Maybe you could also precise what means the normal classroom position.
- In the section "Political influence", you may develop the content of the bill passed on March 2nd.

DCamille (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC) DCamille[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kentucky Education Association/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RJaguar3 | u | t 04:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I liked reading this article. For being a new article, it is surprisingly well-done. Now, on to the review:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
For (a), there are a few spelling errors like "superintended," and "In 1913, KEA was citicized." Grammar errors also need to be fixed, like "They have also been an FEC registered federal Political Action Committee during the 2000 and and 2008 election cycles," "In 2008 KEA/KEPAC was ranked as the number three political action committees in Kentucky" (singular/plural agreement), "ended the year with $451,575.66 in left its fund," (word transposition), "KEA has had at similar influence" (should probably be "a similar influence"), . Also, in general, the KEA is used both as a singular and plural noun; one or the other should be chosen for consistency. I saw a problem with WP:Words to watch, such as "The Lexington Leader claimed," (see WP:SAY). The article fails WP:LAYOUT, as there are no internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Lead is adequate; I saw no problems with fiction or lists.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References appear to be fine. This is not strictly required for GA (since I was able to find the references, which is all that is needed), but I would suggest using the citation templates or similar methods of adding bibliographic information to the bare links, so that someone can find the articles referred to if and when a link goes dead (or becomes a paywall).

For (b), I am going to say that the article does not meet the criterion because there are several quotations, statistics, and controversial statements that lack inline citations. For example, "improved education funding, safe schools, better materials, smaller class sizes, and the empowerment of school employees and parents" has no citation, nor does "In the 2008 election, KEA spent over $27,000 to send direct mail to influence its members to vote for U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Lunsford," "Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear is running for reelection and he and his fellow Democrats have historically relied on the support of the KEA," and "In 2008 KEA/KEPAC was ranked as the number three political action committees in Kentucky, having spent $286,014 in the state. In 2010, the organization spent $435,291.18 on state political activities and ended the year with $451,575.66 in left its fund" (I was not able to verify this with the given citation, you may need to provide more details).

For (c), I have an issue with the statement "KEPAC has a long history of campaign contributions to politicians in Kentucky." This statement is not directly supported by the source, and thus appears to be original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Coverage appears to be fine. Since I am failing the article on the preceding criteria and do not have any major comments to make about these issues, I will leave this as neutral.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
At the moment, this article appears neutral.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No images, so this is automatically satisfied. Perhaps it would be possible to use the KEA logo as a non-free image.
Overall: There are so many issues with style and citation that I don't think could be fixed in one week. Hence, I am going to fail this nomination. I hope this review has been helpful. It's clear that you've done a lot of research into the KEA in writing this article, and it definitely has the possibility of becoming a good article, but I would suggest a copy-edit and WP:Peer review, with another GA nomination perhaps in the future once these issues have been resolved. Again, though, great work at starting such a comprehensive article!
Pass/Fail:

Failed verifications during copy edit[edit]

Some of them were because the citation was to the KEA About page rather than to the correct subpage. I've corrected a couple (losing the archive link, unfortunately, but at leat you have verification). Some I couldn't find. --Stfg (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kentucky Education Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]