# Talk:Fairness Project

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fairness Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

" a United States charitable organization" WP:SEAOFBLUE.
 Done
Infobox uses "organisation", suggest it's made consistent.
 Done - I've bitten my tongue and fingers and opted for organization throughout
Other charity articles I've read include the 501(c)(4) status in the prose.
 Done - used to break up the SEAOFBLUE in point 1
"state organisations and" ENGVAR once again, suggest you double-check throughout.
 Done - at least in this particular word choice, I'll attempt to check to avoid a split mix of american/english, so it doesn't go more Canadian english
Infobox says it was found in DC, but no sign of that in the lead/prose.
 Done - added to history
Address is in infobox but not referenced.
 Done - I used the IRS source, but can add a link to the contact page of their site if that's preferable
Suggest you could expand the lead a little to cover all the main sections, it's a reasonable length article and could easily sustain a two-para lead.
 Done - I've done this to a degree, but I'm unsure how much to include about the campaigns (as they generally win, it also ends up being somewhat one-sided). Would appreciate you taking a look at it.
It looks fine to me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"This led to an increasing number of local initiatives..." sentence not referenced.
 Done
"., the 2015 minimum wages " I would add "where" after the comma.
 Done
" mix of difficulties - it was believed that Washington and Maine would prove viable campaigns but that California would pose a greater challenge" spaced en-dash, not hyphen, but why was CA more of a challenge?  Any clues?
 Done (Both the dash and the explanation)
" by 2020 - a comparable" should be an en-dash again.
 Done
" their required signatures" any idea how many that was?
 Done
" requirements 1 day before" 1->one.
 Done
I note you dislike capitalisation, such as democratic/republican/supreme court etc, is this purposeful?
 Done - I've mostly done this, but was unsure whether a general usage "a state supreme court" - does it still need capitalising? I don't think there's much of a specific reason I've used or not used capitals
No, I think you're quite right.  It's easy to go capitalisation crazy and MOS can be quite a minefield here... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"State Expanded Medicaid Coverage as of 07 November 2018" should this really be "State-expanded Medicaid coverage as of November 7, 2018"?
 Done - well, avoided with a rephrasing.
" campaign budget.[26][25]" refs in numerical order please.
 Done
" fairly even - with the" spaced en dash instead of spaced hyphen.
 Done
"of the medicaid expansion was" capital M?
 Done (2 instances)
" to date" -> "as of 2019".
 Done
" aid is unclear.[38][additional citation(s) needed] " needs to be addressed.
 Done - thankfully a more recent secondary source clarified the details
"Primarily in reaction to the successful" paragraph is unreferenced.
 Done - I was mentally treating it like a mini lead, as the sources below pertain, but I've added them in
Ref 32 showing an error.
 Done
Check refs for publisher/work issues, e.g. The Washington Times should be italicised a work.
 Done - I'm assuming that the titling of their articles is generally a good call on whether it should be italicised or not
Avoid SHOUTING, e.g. PORTLAND PRESS HERALD -> Portland Press Herald.
 Done
You could refine the NPO category to Category:501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations.
 Done

That's it for a quick pass, I'll put the article on hold while we work on these. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - thanks so much for the above. I've acted on everything, I think, but there are 2 areas (marked) where I could use a look at what I've gone for. Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you ref "therefore requiring either standard legislation..."?  I'm re-reading now... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done @The Rambling Man: I've rephrased it, since "standard legislation" was just to mean that a law had to be passed in the state - either by a legislature or (as the whole point of the Fairness Project suggests) by ballot measure. The law needing to be passed is covered (I've just reused the original source since it's in that) and then covered the ballot measure bit as well. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Cool, happy with the article now so passing it to GA, great work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks for everything - over and out.

It exists to [...] and They support the gathering [...] The Project is first referred to in the third-person singular before being referred to in the third-person plural. In most of the article "they" is used, so it's easier to swap out any current instances of "it" with "they". As this is written in (presumably) American English, "they" is not as commonly used as "it" when referring to organisations in formal writing, so it would probably make more sense to use "it" instead for this article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The Project has sought to raise state minimum wages, both through stepped annual increases and through elimination of the tip credit exemption. Emphasis added. Is that not its goal anymore? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Concerns have arisen about the lack of transparency of non-state organizations like the Fairness Project pushing local decisions. How much of an impact is the Project alleged to have on local decisions? Blatant, or more inconspicuous? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
This provided a geographical mix and a mix of difficulties [...] "Mix" appears to be used here with two different meanings. What is meant by "mix of difficulties"? I might be able to find a new word for "mix" there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The proposed motions in Washington and California were fairly similar: they sought to implement an immediate small increase with additional annual graduated increases, leading to $15 by 2020 or 2021, respectively. Is this sentence trying to say that the the aim was to increase minimum wage to $15 by 2020 in Washington, and $15 by 2021 in California? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
[...] as a result, the proposals were withdrawn, the goals having been satisfied. I think everything past the second comma here can be deleted. Alternatively, it could be restructured to with the goals having been satisfied, the proposals were withdrawn. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
This support was focused in Missouri, where, together with the National Employment Law Center, a combined $537,500 was donated by advocacy groups; as well as Arkansas. This sentence is really confusing. I'm taking it to mean "The Project's support was focused on Missouri, where it donated $537,500 in collaboration with the National Employment Law Center, other advocacy groups, and the government of Arkansas." Is that what it is going for? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
There were repeated accusations that this decision was made in order to enable easier future amendments, as ballot-proposed law would require a three-quarters super-majority of each house to overrule. Looking at the cited source, I'm assuming this only applies to Michigan? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The Fairness Project donated $100,000, functionally all on the signature-gathering stage. I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to convey. Could you please clarify? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The first campaign in 2017 offered support by the Project was in Maine where there was strong support to expand Medicaid. The Fairness Project donated $375,000 to aid both the campaigns to have the proposal meet signature requirements and then campaign for its passing. I think it is trying to say that the first 2017 campaign of the Fairness Project was to aid the two state campaigns? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The proposal met the requirements to be added to the ballot and passed with 59% voting in favor. Already edited. Non-copyedit issue, but I couldn't find any mention of "59%" in the cited source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Support in Idaho was both reduced in size and proportion [...] Was support in Idaho actively reduced in size and proportion over time or was it comparatively less than Nebraska? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
[...] with expenditure slightly over half a million dollars, making up 50% of proposal expenditure. To clarify, half of Idaho's campaign expenditures came from the Fairness Project while the other half came from other sources? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Funding shares remained fairly even – with the most controversial remaining the near-90% share of the Nebraska campaign budget. To confirm, this sentence is saying that other than providing almost 90% of Nebraska's campaign budget, funding from the Fairness Project was proportionally even to other sources of funding in other campaigns? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
As well as significant funding from the Project and other like-minded donors in favour, the tobacco industry spent $17,000,000 campaigning in opposition. Wasn't the Fairness Project supporting the Montana ballot, the latter of which was fighting against the tobacco industry? Is the implication that the tobacco industry was superior to the ballot in terms of financial power? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The proposal is set to be voted on 30 June. Not a copyedit issue, but this might want to be updated as the date has passed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
6% of voters' signatures must also have 6% of registered voters' signatures in at least 18 of the 35 state legislative districts. I'm not sure if I'm parsing this correctly: for the ballot to be considered valid, 6% of the ballot's votes must come from 6% of registered voters in the state, which must be gathered from over half of the state? Do the votes of people eligible but not registered to vote count if this requirement is passed? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Looking forward to your responses! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: - thanks for the comprehensive list, it'll be a couple of days before I can give it the time it deserves, but I'll make sure to ping again at that point. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: I've gone ahead and made some changes. If there's anything else you want to discuss about the article, just ping me back on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like two group https://www.thefairnessproject.org/ and https://projectfairness.org/. Should they be differentiated? Tom Ruen (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tomruen:, if the latter was notable then I'd obviously hat note it, but I'd have thought the lead made it sufficiently clear what this one was about, so even those who knew about both shouldn't be too confused. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I figured. And there's one more https://project-fairness.com, saw ads on Youtube, my original query, while I missed URL first time I saw it. The survey looks pretty horrible. Anyway, I guess this is generally a terrible name to pick. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)