Talk:Eugenics in Minnesota

Eugenics in Minnesota is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Cedar Tree at 04:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: none

Minnesota

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eugenics in Minnesota/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cedar Tree (talk · contribs) 04:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well written generally, will do deeper check later. The lead should not have citations, and further should only contain material in the body. There is material only in the lead.

Comments:

Bureau for the Feebleminded and Epileptic - if it's the proper name of the organization epileptic is weird to link
"For a decision to be made, two physicians were to be present."
"made decision on which children to commit to institutions" grammatically incorrect
"because of inability" an inability?
the first usage of racial segregation should be linked, right now it's the second
"were to be", weird tense, flows awkwardly from prior sentence
"Coffman believed that racial segregation and a racial hierarchy was natural. He also believed that this "natural order" should be maintained by the control of reproduction. He believed that white, Protestant people should be allowed to reproduce, while people of color, Jewish, and Catholic people, as well as those with disabilities should have their reproduction controlled." this feels repetitive
"He tested the IQs of thousands of Minnesotan students." did he do it personally or did he order/supervise it? this whole paragraph feels repetitive
"1,802 people were placed under state guardianship. 27 people were being committed every month." maybe change to, with 27 people being committed every month?
"In many cases, IQ tests were used as evidence to wrongfully send whole families into state guardianship, the results of later tests proved that they were not "feebleminded"." the joining of these two sentences is awkward. maybe but the results of later tests, or just split into two sentences
"Eugenics was seen as a way to reduce the overpopulation problem in state institutions and most of the survivors were discharged three months after operations were performed on them." what kind of operations?

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Some close paraphrasing issues, see here. Citation 36, 43 and 44 are not reliable. Haven't checked all.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Seems to be a general overview, however it seems too focused on things very extraneous to the article topic. This article has some very weird inclusions that makes me question its focus. Why is there an entire section on trump and racehorse theory when this has no relation to Minnesota other than the fact he gave a speech there? The in america section's sources have no relation to Minnesota, while enough do to prove notability most of the sources here do not which is a major issue.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Looks good
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Looks good
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Other comments

Dr. Arthur C. Rogers

per MOS:DOCTOR, Dr. should be removed

Issues need addressing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you want fixed with the broad in coverage section? Cedar Tree 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfocused. A substantial portion of the article doesn't have to do with Minnesota, or eugenics. That's the biggest problem here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]