Talk:Rainbow/PUSH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Rainbow/PUSH has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 10, 2007.
October 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within Organizations. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.) GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance within African diaspora.

Contents 1 This article needs to better explain.. 2 Auto Peer Review 3 Successful good article nomination 4 www.discoverthenetworks.org

[edit] This article needs to better explain..

This article needs to better explain what function the Rainbow and PUSH where formed to do and what as a combined entity they do these days. Where they cival rights orginizations like the NAACP? Someone knowledgable on the Rainbow/PUSH should expand the article. --Cab88 01:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It also needs to be known what the Rainbow/PUSH organization calls its' combined self, and what it is known as for short. it certantly can't be Rainbow/PUSH! Also, WHY was the National Rainbow Coalition formed, if there already was Operation PUSH? --EdgeCalibur 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?] Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Clear language usage, easily understandable read. At that, it was also a most enjoyable and interesting read for me, personally.

2. Factually accurate?: Article is sourced to (9) good sources, all look like they satisfy WP:RS, and are formatted with WP:CIT. Nice.

3. Broad in coverage?: Foundation, Functions of organization, Goals, Merger are all good explanations. Going forward towards your next WP:PR though, please expand on that last bit where you mention criticism in the Merger section - if there are enough WP:RS sources for this, might be better off in its own small subsection. Also, add some more commentary on contemporary notable actions of the organization.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article does appear to be worded in neutrally phrased syntax and language.

5. Article stability? No talk page incivility that I can see looking back. No edit warring going back (3) months in edit history.

6. Images?: 2 tasteful images, one is cc and the other is public domain. Nice. I'd just suggest if you get a moment to transwiki them both to Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used across projects.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] www.discoverthenetworks.org

WP:NPOV does not say remove one extreme point of view and describe it as unreliable. It says include all sides. Removing his points is irresponsible. Even worse is all the points that were left in the article, but stripped of their citations. Leave the refs in. The proper thing to do is to find counterpoints and add them to the article, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the source is unacceptable. We do not use unreliable, polemic radical right-wing (or radical left-wing) Web sites as sources, particularly ones run by with a demonstrated record of making things up. The site is usable only as a source for its own opinions. FCYTravis (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally stay out of the fray on political issues by sourcing from Time, Newsweek, U. S. News & World Report, New York Times, etc. (see Jack Kemp or Jesse Jackson, Jr. for example). I don't know who is right wing that counts as right wing and an WP:RS and who right wing and considered a nutjob. Regardless, your edit seems haphazard to me. Can you confirm that in places where you merely removed the citation and not the fact, you thought it through. I am going to trust that if you say you did the remaining stuff is not going to be challenged as failing WP:ATT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)