Talk:2018 Southeastern Provisions raid/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 03:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Will review this probably by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a bit longer to find the time to review this than I expected.

Lead

Cannot start a sentence with a MOS:NUMERAL
~~near the town of Bean Station.[2] How near?~~
~~Koch Foods raid mentioned in the lead is not mentioned in the body.~~
It says that this is the second biggest ICE raid, and the source by that sentence says so as well, but the Postville raid seems bigger than this. Is Daily Yonder a WP:RS? It's a redirect to Bill Bishop. The Rolling Stone source says At the time, it was the largest workplace raid in a decade

Southeastern Provisions investigation

Things that are linked in the lead still need to be linked on their first use in the body. Abbreviations that are introduced in the lead also need to be introduced in the body as well. This goes for IRS, ICE and Grainger County
I appreciate the background on Southeastern Provisions, but there's no background on the Trump administration and ICE, which is clearly relevant. It's discussed in some of the sources, like the Rolling Stone source.

The raid

~~Add the time zone~~
~~described the raid as very hostile situatuion is ungrammatical with a misspelling~~
~~Source for the quote needs to be an inline citation, and there's no reason to include the name of the media outlet with the name of the speaker~~
Those detained were sent to await further instructions at a National Guard center in Morristown in neighboring Hamblen County.[14] This does not appear to be supported by the source. It also doesn't make sense to me. The agents told them to go to Morristown and wait?

Aftermath

~~Morristown only needs to be linked on its first use~~
~~Remove the media source here too~~
The support given to the immigrant families became a talking point for the political realm of the area's impacted by the raid.[7] The support is more important than the talking point. What support? The article mentions a 300 person march

Legal action

~~All five paragraphs in this section are WP:PROSELINE. Please fix.~~
~~The first paragraph is one run on sentence.~~
When you include the dollar sign, saying "dollars" after the number is redundant.
~~agreeing to shell out No WP:EUPHEMISMS~~
This section uses the word "would" for past events four times. This is one of my pet peeves. See WP:INTOTHEWOULDS and rewrite those sentences.
We need context on Judge McDonough's appeal, and what if anything has happened to it.

Aside from all of this, there seems to be a lot missing from this article. I saw one reliable source mention that Brantley had been doing this since 2008. I saw a figure of $8 million in wages that he avoided paying taxes on. I saw things about toxic chemicals and a lack of PPE. And what happened to those 97 people who were detained/arrested? I'm putting this article on hold for one week. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reviewing... – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reviewed the article and decided that the best course of action is to fail this nomination. You did improve the article since my first review, as noted by the struck comments, but the other comments remain unresolved. There are stylistic mistakes, like sentences begun with numerals, the given name of the business owner being used repeatedly when only the surname should be used. Also, looking deeper in the sources, there's information missing. This article says that Morristown families raised over $60,000 for the impacted families of the raid and held a vigil, neither of which are mentioned. And while you did add something on the Trump administration's immigrant policy, it's not enough. That New Yorker source also says that the Trump administration vowed to quadruple workplace inspections. I think this is a decent start to a good article but it needs expansion and copy editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 2, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: ✗ Fail

2. Verifiable?: ✓ Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: ✗ Fail

4. Neutral point of view?: ✓ Pass

5. Stable?: ✓ Pass

6. Images?: ✓ Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.