Jump to content

Talk:Abramski v. United States/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'm claiming this review. I will find time within the next two days to finish the review. AHeneen (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WannaBeEditor: I will (hopefully) have time to completely review this on Saturday. One thing that prevents this from being promoted is the citation style:

 Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the citations to the Supreme Court decision use the pages in a reporter (eg. "Abramski, 134 S. Ct. at 2275"), but the link does not use those corresponding page numbers. That makes verification difficult. You could use the pages in the Supreme Court's slip opinion (see eg. Davis v. Ayala).
 Done - According to the Blue Book, when the official reporter is not available, the Supreme Court Reporter should be used. See this page. Accordingly, I simply chose to remove the link to LII, and remain with the citations to the reporter. WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I added a link to the SCOTUS slip opinion in the external links section. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When citing a dissenting opinion, it should include "([surname of dissenting justice], J., dissenting)" (eg. "(Scalia, J., dissenting)").
 Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was not done. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. Done now. WannaBeEditor (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what citation style this article is using. AHeneen (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AHeneen: I am not sure what you are referring to. If its the SCOTUS citations, the first is a regular Blue Book citations to the Supreme Court Reporter, the rest are short form citations. The other citations in the article use the standard cite web template. WannaBeEditor (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. The standard cite web template does not follow the BlueBook style. You need to change those references to Blue Book style as well. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done WannaBeEditor (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is decent enough that it doesn't prevent promotion to GA
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead does not adequately summarize the entire article. See MOS:LEAD.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See comments above this table. There's one bare URL and I can't tell what citation style this article uses
2b. 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). No very biased sources are used in this article.
2c. it contains no original research. No apparent OR, but the "Previous Litigation" section has no inline citations and a few statements in the "Factual Background" section have no inline citations.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No apparent copyright violations using the Copyvio detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It covers the background law, case history, SCOTUS opinion & dissent, and reactions to the decision. That covers the main aspects
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article at no point goes into unnecessary/excessive details
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The only apparent neutrality issue that I see is using the term "one critic" in the end. Here, I think the critic should be named with why this person's opinion matters (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I think an appropriate way to identify the critic is to replace "One critic criticized the court's..." with "John Lott, a gun rights advocate, criticized the court's..." and "According to this critic, the court..." with "According to Lott, the court..."
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. There were a lot of additions after the GA nomination, but no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Not applicable. GA status does not require images.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Not applicable. GA status does not require images.
7. Overall assessment. On hold. The problems are not hard to fix. AHeneen (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting the review. Here is what I have done:

It doesn't cover the "Responses and analysis" or "Dissent" and it doesn't really discuss the background.AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done WannaBeEditor (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt." is still missing an inline citation. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done WannaBeEditor (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@WannaBeEditor: The only remaining issue with this article is that the lead does not adequately cover the entire article. It should include a sentence or two about both the dissent and the "Responses and analysis" sections. It also should mention just a little more about the "Factual background" of the case. You didn't respond above under my comment about the lead, so I was waiting for you to fix it...but since it's been a couple days without any edit, I just thought I should remind you in case you forgot. AHeneen (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AHeneen:Thanks, I will get to it today or tomorrow. WannaBeEditor (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @WannaBeEditor:, I see that you haven't edited since the above comment. I hope you are OK. It has been two weeks, so it is time to close the nomination. You can renominate it later. If you do, leave a message on my talk page and I may do the review. AHeneen (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AHeneen: I was so busy didn't have time, but I have just finished editing the lead. Do I have to nominate it again? or can you still change the result?
WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abramski_v._United_States/GA1&oldid=966976088"