Talk:Eugenics Board of North Carolina
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The articles Eugenics Board of North Carolina and North Carolina Eugenics Board duplicate the same topic and scope. Looking at the length and history of the two articles, I suggest merging North Carolina Eugenics Board into Eugenics Board of North Carolina and making North Carolina Eugenics Board a redirect. --BlueCanoe (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. All the info is duplicated here pretty much already. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker of English but I want to signal that following the recent news this article may need update; some sources: www.yourdailyjournal.com www.ajc.com www.charlotteobserver.com (Nenalizard (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC))
- I will be working to enhance the content of this article by providing additional citations and adding more information on the subject matter. This is a part of my interdisciplinary application of biology course and I am looking forward to being an active contributor! Nkhudgens (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)nkhudgens
- Both of these proposals sound to be fine. Make sure you don't both try to edit at the same time, else you will get an edit conflict. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Major update coming
This evening I will be uploading a major rewrite of this page. It comprises several new sections, 40 new citations, and several images. Existing sections will be heavily modified. Preview can be seen on my sandbox page. Hammancheez (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking over your page I see that there is a Eugenics Board of North Carolina page and a North Carolina Eugenic Board page, it seems to me that these two pages should be merged into one page to make all the information more concise and in one central location. Another thing that can be merged together is the number of victims and the stories of the victims, I think that these two could potentially become one and be label under victims. Also the page needs to be properly cited, with reliable sources. You can also add hyperlinks to link this page to others; Making the page easier to navigate for users. Also the controversy tab could be update, and you could potentially add a couple of paragraphs under that section. To give the article visual aids add a couple of figures and pictures, maybe one from the Department of Public Welfare under the organization and administration tab. Furthermore it seems like there could be more information added under the organization and administration tab. I know you are still working on the page but so far you have done a good job, keep up the good work!--Mespinos (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Well I will answer about the duplicate articles. A merger was proposed above in January. Just hasn't been done yet. I for one was waiting to see which one would be worked on more and was looking into what the correct board name was. Now I don't see any reason to not redirect North Carolina Eugenics Board to this article. Will correct that now. The other stuff I'll let others look at before doing anything else with it. Think you are right, though, about the victims sections being consolidated. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Article Rating Change & Improvements
As a Wikipedia Ambassador, I have read many good articles produced by students. I must say this is one of those that is quite well done. On top of the good writing, I think this has the length and content quality to reach B class. It is a very good read, and from what I can tell, the sources are very accurate, especially on a difficult topic such as this. I have a few notes about this. First, lob off the overview, instead incorporate it into the introduction at the top of the article. It should be 2-3 paragraphs summarizing the article, citations are fine, but are not necessary. Next, there are many paragraphs (such as in the dates sections early on), the quote under the legal sections, and all bullet points that need citations at the end of them. I can tell which source they are coming from, but you all have to cite the source at the end of each paragraph and bullet point. This way it is clear that it coming from the same source (or multiple sources if you cite 2+ at the end of each paragraph). Overall great article, and I hope you all can make these changes because the citations are very well done and the article is very expansive and informative on this topic. All that were involved should be proud. Kayz911 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Tightened up intro, added specific reference links to paragraphs in legal sections and bullet points. Hammancheez (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Why the F*** is there a Justification section?
Where's the "justification" section for the holocaust wiki? Why not lay out the "good" that it would do? Christ.