Talk:Human trafficking in Greece/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 02:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rachel, thanks much for all the work you have put into this article! I'm not sure you're still around, I see you haven't edited since November. Are you still interested in working on this article and getting it up to GA standards? If so, great, I'll help however you need. It will probably need substantial work, but if you're willing to do it, great. I've just started with a few suggestions below, as you address these concerns, reply to each below the comment so we can discuss each point. I'll add more points as I go through the article and we refine the review. I'll wait a week and then if I don't hear from you by then I'll assume you're not working on it any more and fail this GA nom (which is not to say you can't work on it again at any point in the future). If you reply within the week we can take as long as you need to work on the article.
Here are some thoughts just to start out:
- "…does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking" What minimum standards? If they're from a specific internatinoal treaty or body, it should say "the UN's minimum standards" or whatever.
- As an encyclopedia article, the piece should avoid making commentary, so sentences like this should be reworded: "The government made clear progress in prosecuting labor and sex trafficking offenses, identifying victims, implementing a child victim protection agreement with Albania, and advancing prevention activities." The examples are great, it's the first part of the sentence, the "clear progress" that makes me feel like this could be the author inserting their opinion. Show don't tell, offer examples and let the reader conclude whether that was clear progress.
- "Global trade in women is estimated to be worth between 7 and 12 billion dollars annually" If this is US dollars that should be made explicit. We are writing for a global audience.
- "As of 2010, an estimated 270,000 people are trafficking annually in Europe" Should this be changed to "trafficked"?
- Images are recommended. Can you think of any type of image that could illustrate the article or any examples in it?
- These facts are already mentioned earlier in the article, no need to repeat (except in the lead): "Today, 50-55% of trafficking victims in Athens are from former Soviet bloc countries, and more than half of the women trafficked into Greece overall are estimated to be from Russia and Ukraine"
- More unnecessary repetition: "As a gateway to Western Europe, victims are often trafficked through Greece in order to reach other EU countries.[1] Greece’s border with Turkey is also a hotspot for illegal immigrants looking to find their way into the European Union"
If at any point you want help working on it or any other article let me know. Thanks again for the huge improvement to the article with the high quality of research. I look forward to working with you this week or at some point in the future. delldot ∇. 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Delldot, I would love to keep working on this article and get it up to good article status. I have a crazy amount of work this semester so it may take me a little while to get around to some of the more major edits, but I would like to continue working on it. Also, i just want to warn you that I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and may miss some things on Talk Page etiquette or formatting type things on the page, but I'll do my best and hopefully can turn out a good article! Thanks, Rachel.m.mitchell (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Terriffic Rachel, I'm so glad. Take your time, there's no real deadline to this. I get busy in real life at times so this may be a gradual process indeed. No worries about being new, I can help however you need, or if I can't we can find someone who can. To start off, reply to each of the bulleted comments with an indented one below it to say how you've addressed it. delldot ∇. 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Any updates? Been over a month since the last one. Wizardman 14:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- On the nominator's talk page, the reviewer said "if you do respond within a week we can take as long as you want to work on it". I've now asked the nominator on her talk page, to update us here. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't have any problem with her taking her time, but if it is cluttering up the GAN page I also don't see any problem with taking this down for now and working with her outside of the GAN process as her schedule permits, then re-nomming whenever it's ready. She can still use this page to guide the initial steps. The only concern I would have is I wouldn't want it to be disappointing for her if we fail it for now since I did tell her she could take her time. delldot ∇. 22:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I have a few questions. I got permission to continue working on this page as the final assignment for a different (related) class I'm taking this semester, so I will now have dedicated time to begin working on the changes and improvements you listed about. However, as part of the class also, I am vastly expanding on what I wrote before. Last time I made significant additions in regards to sex trafficking in Greece; now I would like to add more information relating to forced labor, debt bondage, and domestic servitude, and focus on men in addition to women and children. Also, I would like to make sure that the updates I made last time are a bit more neutral by distancing them from U.S. based anti-prostitution rhetoric when necessary and including other opinions, and citing all of them in one way or another. Can I make these kinds of substantive content changes while still having the article be considered as a GA nominee? If not, I will of course work to implement the improvements you listed above, and then renomiate the article after I have updated more content. Please let me know what you think or how this changes the steps needing to be taken to recieve GA status. Thanks! Rachel.m.mitchell (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Great, I'm glad you plan to put so much more work into it. I think the additions you mentioned will be really valuable in rounding out the article and making it more comprehensive. I think it would be best to take this particular GA nom down for now, make the changes, then renominate later when you're done. "Stability" (i.e. not undergoing drastic changes) is one of the criteria for GA, so we wouldn't want it to be that much of a work in progress during a GA nom. If you'd like I can help out along the way and let you know when I think it's ready for renomination (if it's got a chance of passing it will get reviewed more quickly. On the other hand I'm probably more of a hardass than most GA reviewers so you can make your own decisions). I think since you seem ok with it and since others seem to want it taken down I will go ahead and fail this for now. Let me know what kind of help you need while working on it, I will probably not do anything until you ask me to. Peace, delldot ∇. 15:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I have a few questions. I got permission to continue working on this page as the final assignment for a different (related) class I'm taking this semester, so I will now have dedicated time to begin working on the changes and improvements you listed about. However, as part of the class also, I am vastly expanding on what I wrote before. Last time I made significant additions in regards to sex trafficking in Greece; now I would like to add more information relating to forced labor, debt bondage, and domestic servitude, and focus on men in addition to women and children. Also, I would like to make sure that the updates I made last time are a bit more neutral by distancing them from U.S. based anti-prostitution rhetoric when necessary and including other opinions, and citing all of them in one way or another. Can I make these kinds of substantive content changes while still having the article be considered as a GA nominee? If not, I will of course work to implement the improvements you listed above, and then renomiate the article after I have updated more content. Please let me know what you think or how this changes the steps needing to be taken to recieve GA status. Thanks! Rachel.m.mitchell (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't have any problem with her taking her time, but if it is cluttering up the GAN page I also don't see any problem with taking this down for now and working with her outside of the GAN process as her schedule permits, then re-nomming whenever it's ready. She can still use this page to guide the initial steps. The only concern I would have is I wouldn't want it to be disappointing for her if we fail it for now since I did tell her she could take her time. delldot ∇. 22:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)