Talk:ColorStack

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:ColorStack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 08:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 20:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 and @Viriditas: I'll chime in as well! :) ☯️🐉🐼 Unsurprising 🐼🐉☯️: nice to meet you! 📝 👥 17:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The more, the merrier... Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Great! I'm currently working on the "History" section of the article using your suggestions. Thanks for letting me know so we can work together on this! Johnson524 may be busy at the moment. (I used template:noping for this to avoid pinging him. Hopefully, he has something to say, though I won't force it!) ☯️🐉🐼 Unsurprising 🐼🐉☯️: nice to meet you! 📝 👥 21:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Images

• All good

Infobox

• I removed the "genre" parameter. {{Infobox company}} reserves that field for specific types of media or publishing companies, or "the field or subset of the industry the company occupies". DEI is not a genre. As for whether diversity in computing should be listed, I am open to that, but "genre" sounds odd. Is there a better field?
  • Already done That's fine by me! I don't know if there's a better field either 😅 Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• Focus on readability. You use the term "nonprofit" ~27 times in the article, and six times in the lead section alone. You can also use the org name, pronouns, and other nouns to avoid this kind of unnecessary repetition. Try using variations on "ColorStack" and "it", for example.
  • Already done This was intentionally done for consistency, but I other words can be used if it comes off as clunky. I see you've already editing the article quite a bit addressing this, is there anything you need me to do for this now? Cheers! Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Unnecessary precision? I don't think you need to say "As of September 2026 for the 2026–27 school year". Just say, as of 2026. Whenever you want to be overly precise, just add a footnote or save it for the body. The lead should be streamlined whenever possible. We want to invite readers into the subject, not turn them away.
  • Already done Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Same here: Instead of saying "the nonprofit had 108 chapters and 6,001 members at universities across 31 U.S. states, two Canadian provinces, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C." in the lead, you could simplify and write "at universities across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico" and leave the details in the body. This is a stylistic preference, however. Sometimes details in the lead matter, sometimes they do not. To me at least, and this is of course a personal preference, you want to put details like this in the infobox and in the body so it doesn't clutter up the lead.
    •  Done Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Consider the use of a paragraph break after "The goal of these events is often for its members to obtain scholarships and internships", so that it is the last sentence in a second paragraph.
  • Already done Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Stated goals of the nonprofit were to increase brand recognition to be on par with similar organizations like the National Society of Black Engineers and Black Girls Code. Kind of a clunky sentence. There's several ways to rewrite this.
  • Already done Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Activities

• Its stated purpose is to build connections between minorities majoring in computer science, providing academic advising and career development opportunities as a means of doing so. Concision. "As a means of doing so" adds nothing. You can rewrite this in numerous ways. I would just suggest going back to the source material and rewriting it. One example: "Its stated purpose is to build connections among computer science students from minority backgrounds by providing academic advising and career development opportunities", but I think you can improve on that version.
  •  Done Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• At Binghamton University, a "Sip and Apply" event takes place where members eat foreign cuisines while applying to internships, and at Columbia University and Virginia Tech, pizza dinners are held to help members socialize and discuss the field. Might want to split this up: "For example, at Binghamton University, members hold a "Sip and Apply" event, where they eat food from different cuisines while applying for internships. At Columbia University and Virginia Tech, pizza dinners give members opportunities to socialize and discuss the field."

History

• You've got a 305 word paragraph here. Anything more than 200 words generally has readability issues for newer generations. I would split the entire thing into two paragraphs of 150 words more or less.
• The summit in particular has featured engineers from companies including Duolingo and Netflix, and offered opportunities for underclassmen to talk to recruiters. Omit needless words. "The summit has featured engineers from companies including Duolingo and Netflix, while also offering underclassmen opportunities to talk to recruiters."
  •  Done, thank you! :) ☯️🐉🐼 Unsurprising 🐼🐉☯️: nice to meet you! 📝 👥 17:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• According to a March 2026 report, the nonprofit is now based in Freeport, New York, and has 987 employees. It's not necessary to attribute here, and it both sounds strange and gives the appearance of WP:PROSELINE. Check the spot check section below to note that both the report date (it's now August) and the employee count are off. Please revise.
  • Not sure The report cites the employee count (now 1,112) as of March 2026, please check the contents if needed. I also re-worded the sentence. ☯️🐉🐼 Unsurprising 🐼🐉☯️: nice to meet you! 📝 👥 18:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Locations

• You use the word "nonprofit" five times in this section, as if that is the definitive term for the org. See the comment in the lead section up above.
• Some universities with chapters include the University of Miami in Florida, Northwestern University in Illinois, Bard College and Columbia University in New York, Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and Virginia Tech in Virginia. I don't think you need to mention the locations of the universities as it is duplicative and redundant in some instances. Location isn't just geographical, it's also mentioning the name of the university, which in many cases is associated with the geography. Saying "Virginia Tech in Virginia" is just silly, and most people know Miami is in Florida, etc.
  • These locations are indeed obvious, especially given the university names and linked pages.  Done! :) ☯️🐉🐼 Unsurprising 🐼🐉☯️: nice to meet you! 📝 👥 17:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Spot check

• Citation #
  • (1a): Check.
  • (1b): Semi-check. Mostly checks out as a paraphrase, and is seemingly accurate, but I don't see anything about "stated purpose". Am I missing it? A different source, maybe? Or is the wording too strong?
    •  Done Nope, I think the wording was too strong. Corrected! Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • (2b): After completing internships at Two Sigma and Google as a software engineer and product manager, respectively... Apparently he had three separate internships: one at Two Sigma (software engineering intern, May–August 2017), followed by two at Google (engineering practicum intern, May–August 2018; associate product management intern, May–August 2019). He then received a job offer at Google to come on board as associate product manager, but declined to found ColorStack. However, it is unclear if those sources are reliable enough to use. Note: I found one usable source:
  • (12a): Check.
  • (12b): Check.
  • (12c): Check.
  • (12d): Check.
  • (13): Primary. Hard to establish the claim at first glance.
  • (14): Primary. Could serve if (13) was a secondary.
  • (15): Out of date. According to a March 2026 report, the nonprofit is now based in Freeport, New York, and has 987 employees. Looks like this data changed as it was updated in August. Please revisit.
    • The report cites the employee count (now 1,112) as of March 2026, please check the contents if needed. ☯️🐉🐼 Unsurprising 🐼🐉☯️: nice to meet you! 📝 👥 18:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • (16a): Check.
  • (16b): Check.
  • (17): Out of date. Updated in September with new numbers. Check current version.
    • Is this not the current/September version? Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • (18): Check.
  • (19): Check.

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Cut down on unnecessary repetition; improve readability. Figure out when to be precise, when to put details in infobox/body, and when to streamline the lead

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation and table accessibility:

   Minor issues discussed above.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Refs listed.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Spot check in progress.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No OR detected.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvio (Earwig returns quotes only).

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Main aspects addressed.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No unnecessary detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Some major changes four days ago, but meets the general description of stability; no edit wars or disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Good.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text:

   Nice job creating File:Map of ColorStack locations.png! It looks good and the description is comprehensive. The only thing you didn't mention is how you created it, which interests me, but it is not necessary.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold. Very minor prose issues to fix for readability and wording, and content needing updating. Should be easy to do. Very close to meeting criteria.

Thank you so much for picking up this nom! Funny enough I've never been part of a ColorStack chapter or been to a meeting. Likewise all my info about them comes from the sources listed, which hopefully makes for pretty neutral writing lol. I've addressed some of the issues and will continue to work on the rest, feel free to ping me if you have anything further you'd like to see done. Cheers! Johnson524 09:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)