“Likewise, Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued that education about racism (which she frames as "critical race theory") is dangerous for children and should be prohibited, claiming it causes distress and depresses children; this too can be framed as harm to minors' mental health in the framework provided by the bill.”
This seems to be a bit politically biased. Wouldn’t it be better to directly quote Blackburn without giving individual opinions about what does and does not constitute racism/critical race theory? You could just not quote her and say that this “could censor contemporary discussions on race in public schools?” 2A02:A420:4C:62E6:3164:98:7160:A461 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Here are the last two sentences:
1) Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children.
2)EFF columnist Jason Kelly states that with the mental health in the framework provided by the bill, that KOSA could be used to censor education about racism in schools.
In second-to-last sentence, it is not stated what is a "dangerous ideology". The most logical assumption would be that the word "it" was left out, and it should read, "Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued it is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children. But I don't believe Sen Blackburn, one of the bill's authors, has said this.
In the last sentence, the phrase, "...the mental health in the framework provided by the bill...", is unclear. Does it mean "...the mental health framework provided by the bill...", "the mental health provisions in the bill...", or what?
I think these two problems were the result of editing done in response to the previous comment, "Editorialized opinions in article". Stuart.soloway (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Is the current text in the "Bill summary" needed? There are a few sources other than the bill that summarize the legislation itself in a better way:
"‘New text, same problems’: inside the fight over child online safety laws" - The Guardian
"Passing the Kids Online Safety Act just got more complicated" - The Verge
"200 groups push Senate to vote on Kids Online Safety Act in 2024" - NBC News — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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).:
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:
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)