Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

[edit] Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

This is a somewhat short article given its limited scope. However, I've researched heavily for this topic, as evidenced by the references section. I dedicated my time to writing a comprehensive, neutral and adequately sourced article, adding inline citations in nearly every assertion of the article's body. It's been peer-reviewed, and would now like to see if the community believes it meets the ultimate standards. At the very least, even if it doesn't pass, I'll know that good suggestions will be provided to improve the article. Thanks in advance for your comments. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 19:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, well written and referenced. Tony the Marine 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support. I can see why you've put the two pictures in, but I'm not sure they're really what the article needs. As far as I can tell there is no graphic or logo for NAP itself. The picture of the store aisle illustrates, but I don't think it really informs. I won't oppose on the basis of the graphics, but if you can find something else it would be great. Is there any information about Puerto Rico's demographics that could be made into either a map or a chart, for example? I have some copyedit comments too; I'll put those on the article's talk page to avoid clogging up the FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Response:
  • Images: You're right about the images, there's currently no logo or insignia to identify the program, only for the Puerto Rico state agency that runs it. I'm inclined not to include it in this article because it could face fair-use problems.
  • Demographics: During my research, I tried to find information within the sources which linked poverty rates, consumer price indexes, and other related data with the NAP program, but was unsuccessful. I'll try researching today and tonight to see if I can find anywhere else which is related, so long as it doesn't tilt towards OR.Y Done
  • Copyedit: More please! Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to correct them today and any other which arises.Y Done

Any other suggestions are much welcome! - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've answered these concerns, except for the images since none can be found. Any more suggestions are welcome. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is featured quality now. If you can find the data to create the graphics I suggested on the talk page, that would be great, but I don't think it's necessary for featured status. I've switched to support, above. Mike Christie (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mike for your suggestions, they did wonders. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is FA quality. I have a few minor comments.
  • Lead Needs to includes summary of the material under "Management assessment" Y Done
  • History I would get rid of the "Background" and "Program Creation" subtitles. They are not balanced in length and the beginning of the latter sub-sect begins with "To address these issues," . If you do not just put it all under "History", you need to rewrite that beginning to quickly name the issues in the new subsection. Separate sections need to be coherent to reader's who start reading right there. Y Done
  • Images There are some photos from the USDA found here or here. They are obviously publicity shots, but you might be able to do something with them and copyright is not an issue. Y Done I wish we had a photo of card to use.--BirgitteSB 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the images, I decided to include only one, which provided relevant imagery to the article. You're right about the card, though. However my attempts have been futile. I've asked two beneficiaries who have refused to let me photograph it due to privacy issues. The USDA doesn't have a picture on it in their website (nor on the past national vouchers, which is odd given their wide use), nor does the PR Dept. of the Family (which, even if they did, would present fair-use issues). Anyway, this FAC has done wonders to the article, thanks for your comments. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for writing an article on a real subject. Overall good work. I realize the article is on a narrow subject, but nonetheless it doesn't feel comprehensive. The only specific item I can put a finger on is that the article really doesn't spend much space on discussing the impact of the program. There have got to be studies about that. For ex, do children recieving assistance do better in school, impact on mortality, etc. You don't need to regurgitate all welfare impact studies, but an appropriate amount of information about the impact of this program is needed. I see a citation notes that there isn't recent information on the social impact, but there's got to be some. Also that reference returns a 404. That's just one example. I would think a review of the sources would reveal additional topics that haven't been properly developed in relation to their importance to the subject, though I could be wrong, I haven't read the sources. That information could help expand the third paragraph of the lead which is a little choppy. - Taxman ^Talk 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll review all the sources. If you got one error, there may be others. Y Done

As to current impact, the only consistent, reliable, and publicly-available studies are those issued by the GAO. I'll see if there are any new releases, or if the ones provided incorporate more detailed information. The biggest source of information should be the PR Department of the Family, but they don't publish their studies (and even if they did, I'd have serious concerns over the primary source's integrity).

Since this issue you presented is a critical one (deals directly with FA criteria), I'll take the next three days for addressing them. If no studies are found, I'll let you know so you can determine the next appropriate step, even if it means withdrawing. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, just use the best you can, even if the available studies are older, just note that. Good luck. - Taxman ^Talk 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found some useful info, although its definitely not recent. I hope it was what you recommended to increase its comprehensiveness. Please review this section for its adequacy and proofreading. I also rearranged some paragraphs, merging them to other section to improve the flow of information. If you could review the article again from the top, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I supported above, but I'm now a bit concerned about the aesthetics of the table layout in the program benefit section. It looks very ugly on my screen, at what I believe is a normal font size; the problem is the tables are jammed up against each other, and you get a big chunk of white space on the right. I tried previewing the section with the table moved to the left, but that looks ugly too. Any ideas for improvement? Mike Christie (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems, but I've made some changes. How does it look now? Also, what's your resolution? Maybe I could see what's wrong by experimenting with them. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 13:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot better the way you have it now. (My screen is at 1280x1024.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.