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

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC): Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Hi. I'll be happy to review this article.[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): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Major Concern 1: It is quite clear this article is way too under-developed. This is a major proposed change in federal law (per the Guardian: "Kosa would be the biggest change to American tech legislation in decades") I understand it's still a bill but I highly encourage the nominator to look at other GA articles on US law (e.g, Illinois Freedom of Information Act).:

• Lead: Clearly very under-developed but why is "Blackburn has argued that resources on topics such as racism and the civil rights movement overlap with critical race theory, which she sees as "dangerous"" the last sentence? Without reading the rest of the article I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say.

• Bill summary: This bill is over 100 pages. It will take far more than 3 sentences to summarize it. Nothing on general scope of the bill
• History: Extremely limited information (about 3 sentences) on why the bill was created. What is the status quo on laws concerning social media and children? Why does Biden support it? Why do Democrats support it? Why do Republicans? So many unanswered questions.
• Reception: Ok, I'm not saying "both sides" needs to be equal in the reception section. But if you're going to start off by saying "KOSA has been supported by over 200 groups..." you're going to need to at least give a paragraph or two on why the bill is supported.

Major Concern 2: The second problem in this article is sourcing. You cite way too many advocacy groups directly. Instead, try to get their opinions from reliable, secondary sources. Other sourcing concerns:

• Teen Vogue: I don't think Teen Vogue is the best source on US politics. But beyond that, the cited article is an op-ed. You can not use an op-ed for facts.
• Substack: You can't use an SPS. I do not believe the author (Parker Molloy) would qualify as a subject matter expert. They seem more like a general blogger/writer.
• TechCrunch: Per RSP, TechCrunch isn't the strongest source and I'm sure you can easily replace it with a better one.

All-in-all, the primary sources + the advocacy group sources + the other questionable sources contribute to almost 50% of this article's sources. Due to the sheer amount of poor sources and the clear fact that this article is not broad in coverage, I will need to quick fail it because "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Since I am still new to GA reviews, I will allow a more experienced reviewer close this. Thank you and good luck on improving the article! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's resolution on this GA on the counts that it does not broadly represent the subject nor is it written with a neutral point of view. On the count of the sources - most of the less reliable sources are being specifically used in reception and have the statements preceding them delineated as "critics say..." Still, given the breadth of this topic, there's no doubt there are better sources that could be used to replace self-published ones, especially those that summarize the viewpoints of advocacy groups. Much of the article in the History section and before is well cited. The primary takeaways are that the lead, history and scope need expansion and that reception should use fewer primary sources. Reconrabbit 15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]