Talk:Gary Orfield
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proyecto Derechos Civiles
editFrom this query, it appears that Proyecto Derechos Civiles was founded in 1996, so I reverted the edit that changed it to 1991. Is there overwhelming evidence that this was founded in 1991 somewhere?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved to draft
editI moved this to draft space because most of the content is uncited, which is an issue for a Biography of a Living Person. Otherwise, it could have been nominated for deletion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: Think it's ready to go back? --evrik (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 17:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- ... that academic Gary Orfield was called upon to be an expert witness in the University of Michigan Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger?
--evrik (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- n
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Earwig gives a 50%+ chance of violation. Reviewing the results, the paragraph detailing Grutter v. Bollinger could be better paraphrased, as could the one beginning "In 1997, Orfield..." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Side note - apparently the nominator is blocked for socking, so this will need to be handled by someone else, or failed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
With the nominator blocked, and no one stepping forward to adopt this nomination, I am marking this as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
