Talk:Reading Is Fundamental

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.rif.org/read-for-success/ http://www.rif.org/about-rif/ The Hays Daily News, Saturday January 30, 2005, p 22. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 00:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Updating the article with conflict of interest

I attempted to write a draft with updated information for this page, but would like another editor to approve and edit the live page. Here is the draft: User:S201645723/sandbox/Reading Is Fundamental Draft S201645723 (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to decline this, for the following reason:

• One reference is a non-searchable 200-page document without a given page number. It might say what it's cited for, but I'm not going to read half a book for verification, and we shouldn't ask our readers to do so.
• Major parts of the rewritten text are still based on primary sources including RIF itself. That's not an improvement.
• At least one secondary source was gotten rid of in favour of primary sources; that would make the article worse.
• The content seems rather jumbled, without much structure. The "history" section in particlar is just a disconnected sequence of dates that are somehow connected to RIF, with the connection at times not even spelled out.

So in summary, I do not think replacing the current article by the draft would be an improvement. I will, however, make use of the lone new secondary source that the draft contains. Huon (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Request edit

This is request edit #2 after getting feedback from editors User:S201645723/sandbox/Reading Is Fundamental Draft.

Here are some changes that I made:

• Added an info box with basic information about the organization, including tax ID #, CEO, and mission
• Added the specific date of RIF's founding
• Added key dates for the organization including the first major funding partnership and the start of federal funding
• Updated RIF's current programs to include a newly developed program
• Added relevant categories for the organization

I also added several secondary sources for all the information that was updated. Any help would be appreciated. S201645723 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Doing... Altamel (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Altamel: In case you're done with the request, I'll mark this as partial. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Explaining the cut

Whatever is done about the passage now quoted in ref 6, please do not leave the cut in federal grant without an explanation. Remember that readers outside the US have almost no idea of how the US political system works in detail! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)