Talk:Job Training Partnership Act of 1982

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

I think this article may be a bit of information overkill. It is loaded with all the information neccessary to understand the Act short of reading the actual text, but it is very lengthy. Could I get some feedback on this? Skyler 11:23, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Just as a quick note:

This Act was repealed by title I, Sec. 199(b)(2) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1982. Some of the provisions were adjusted for the new Act and some were dropped.

I assume that 1982 there is a typo, it seems unlikely that an act 'of 1982' would be repealed in 1982. --Booklegger 18:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I saw your request for peer review, and am obliging. I think I see where your problem lies.

The reason that the article is so long is that it is not, in my opinion, an encyclopedia article. Take this sentence for example:

Directs the Secretary to take appropriate action to establish administrative procedures and machinery (including personnel having particular competence in this field) for the selection, administration, monitoring, and evaluation of Native American employment and training programs, and of migrant and seasonal employment and training programs, under this Act.

That sounds like a straight copy and paste from a government document. Even apart from the prose style, this is not an encyclopedia article because it makes very little attempt to provide context or meaning. Right now it's basically a summary of the law.

A near-complete rewrite is needed. The focus needs to shift from what the law said to what the law actually did. What were the notable effects of the law? Which were the important provisions, and which were just afterthoughts or special interests? Were these the first programs of their kind, or were they minor variants on what had gone before? Which of its programs were considered successful? Which were failures? Were all of the programs actually implemented?

Basically, you need to fit the law into the context of the overall fight against poverty. A discussion of the politics (if any) surrounding the law's passing might also be good. Isomorphic 05:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)