Talk:Alpha Kappa Alpha/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

AKA Review 2

Hi. This article is ok I think, although with my strong opposition to self-sourcing, I might want to get a second opinion on that

  • The vast majority of the artilce is sourced to AKA websites or books published by the AKA. Generally I would like to avoid such things unless totally necessary.
The problem is that most of the sorority's history is published by AKA. However, I have incorporated other sources, such as Delta Sigma Theta's history, The Divine Nine, etc. Miranda 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I might be a bit outspoken on that so I'll aska few other ppl. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The use of self sourcing is usually ok for sentences describing annoucements, eg, "AKA announced it would do...."[1] but I think it's prefereable for fact statements like "AKA did ...." since now we are dealing with real fact and not just statements of intent, which are the official pov of the organisation. So I think getting more independent sources where possible is good.
Or say, the sorority is planning? Miranda 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That is what is preferable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There are some POv phrases in the main body, perhaps due to importing from AKA sources
  • "the sorority serves all mankind "
  • "An interested member can join through undergraduate chapters at a college or university" a joining info in the lead might appear to some to be canvassing for RL memberships
  • "Alpha Kappa Alpha has responded to the world’s increasing complexity and continues to empower communities through service initiatives and progressive programs relating to education, family, health, and business " this is sourced to AKA. It should be stated as official ideology. It is not necessarily reality.
This is taken out due to OR. Miranda 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The prose probably isnt the greatest, but for GA it will be alright sort of. You might want to be the links of User:Tony1's page. I can pick some out of the lead.
  • "Alpha Kappa Alpha will celebrate her centennial anniversary on January 15, 2008" -> "Alpha Kappa Alpha will her centenary on January 15, 2008" - redundancies, more efficient to read
  • I don't think it should be "her" but some neutral word. Like "On January 15, 2008, the organization will turn one-hundred years old"? Miranda 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ""Alpha Kappa Alpha will celebrate its centennial anniversary on January 15, 2008". I only used her since it was what you used originalyl. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, someone just entered the link. Miranda 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Miranda 07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • "Led by Ethel Hedgeman Lyle's efforts, Alpha Kappa Alpha was founded on January 15, 1908" -> efforts is redundant
  • I will change that. Miranda 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Miranda 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Expansion and Initial Implementation of Programs 1920–1940":headers should not be caps except proper nouns
  • I will change that. Miranda 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The comment at the bottom of the infobox is POV, unless attributed to AKA ideology
  • I will take that out, because someone inserted it
Y Done Miranda 07:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The AKA slogan quote should not be the opening sentence of history or any other section, it is marketingish. There'a another Linda Evans one in a lower section.
  • Can it be a box then? Miranda 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I will make it into a box. Miranda 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Alpha_Kappa_Alpha#Centennial_Celebration:_January_15.2C_2008 Also, that is not the slogan. The purpose is important to the article, because it details why the sorority was founded.Miranda 07:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bolding of individual programs shouldnt be there
I will de-bold it. Miranda 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Miranda 07:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You also made internal links to other sections of the article. I don't think that's supposed to be there
Y Done taken out. Miranda 07:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • They are the links to the regions. How about links to citations? Miranda 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In the refs and notes sections, the italic comments aren't needed since that is the normal practice.
Y Done deleted. Miranda 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ref 59 is about.com which is a WP mirror. Not a RS.
  • I will look at that now. Miranda 06:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done replaced. Miranda 07:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In the middle, there is a list of branches which lead to EL. I don't think ELs should belinked in the middle of the text. Another is the large list of the Boules. I think it would be better if it was forked or made collapsible since this listy section subdivides the prose into two. But that 's just my opnion.
  • EAF projects is porbably better off prosified rather than as a list
It will be hard/a tad difficult to prosify.Miranda 07:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In general, I don't think the large block quotes of glowing comments from leaders and personnel of AKA make it NPOV. I would remove it
  • Also, I think there are too many images. If the text is sandwiched between two pictures, then I think that's too much.
The 1950s-1970s portion is not done yet. :-/ Miranda 07:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there more reporting about AKA in the media, because an outside view of events is needed
CNN is mentioned as well as above sources. I am basing this off of Alpha Phi Alpha. Miranda 07:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll get more opinions on teh self-sourcing, but apart from that it is fine.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking and the books do have ISBNs [1]. Could you add the ISBNs please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done to some. Miranda 20:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Per my request for second opinions, people are asking for AKA source material to be noted as such in teh prose. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not noted in Alpha Phi Alpha, and it's a featured article? I thought the requirements for FA of Greek Articles are grandfathered in with this article. I apologize, but there is no other sources available for Alpha Kappa Alpha's history, except the ones listed. This can be said for other Greek related articles. I said before, that the controversy section is not reported by AKA, but by other reliable sources such as CNN and another newspaper. I have worked VERY HARD on this article as well as it's list, and I would appreciate straight facts, and not wishy-washy answers. I have cited the information accordingly with CITE and the readers can match the authors with the books. Miranda 04:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
APA is front early 2006 when the standards were a bit softer than they were at the moment, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but will not do. Miranda 02:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have failed this article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So, this article can not get a better grade because there are not other sources of information? The Sorority chose to publish its own material. Are the sorces listed not good enough? If they are not I can not imagine that AKA will all of a sudden stop publishing thier own material.LivelyIvy1908 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)