Talk:Abramski v. United States/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 20:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/review from Notecardforfree

First and foremost, I want to apologize for not getting to this review sooner. My work has been incredibly busy this last month, but thankfully I had some free time this weekend. I think this article is very close to passing the Good Article Criteria. Please see below for items that need to be addressed before this article can be promoted.

Well written

I made a number of copyedits, but feel free to revert any copyedits that you think are incorrect.
When referring to the Supreme Court of the United States, make sure you capitalize the "C" in "Court."

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do, however, think the lead needs to be expanded to provide a complete summary of the article. Specifically, I think you need to add 3-4 sentences about the factual background and the majority opinion's reasoning (e.g. that straw arrangements are not part of the secondary market).

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Opinion of the Court" section, you should explain that Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the "Opinion of the Court" section, I would recommend using a topic sentence as the first sentence in this section -- in that first sentence, you should summarize the Court's holding.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the "Opinion of the Court" section, I think the first sentence is a little misleading; Justice Kagan admitted that the act doesn't mention the term "straw purchasers," but Justice Kagan clarified that this is irrelevant to the ultimate inquiry because section 922 "looks through the straw to the actual buyer" (see slip opinion at p. 9). You offer some clarification in the next sentence, but you should make clear that the absence of the term "straw buyer" in the Act is irrelevant to the ultimate issue.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL, I would remove the external links in the body of the "Opinion of the Court" section.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure terms and concepts are not wikilinked multiple times.

Done - I removed all or maybe most of the duplicate wikilinks. WannaBeEditor (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section about Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, make sure to not say that Justice Scalia "held" anything. A dissent does not have the force of law, and thus is not a "holding." You can say he "would have held" XYZ or that he argued in favor of XYZ, etc.

Done - Removed and rephrased all the "helds" in the dissent. WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

The first sentence of the "Opinion of the Court" section needs a citation (though see above for my recommendations about changing this sentence).

Done WannaBeEditor (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When citing to the Supreme Court opinion, make sure the citations include a range of pages if the material you are citing appears on multiple pages (see e.g. for footnote 16, which cites Abramski, 134 S. Ct. at 2277 (Scalia, J., dissenting)).

@Notecardforfree: I don't see your point, I believe that all the citations point to ranges of pages where applicable. I didn't review all of them again, but I remember being careful when first citing. In you example (which is now footnote 18 I believe) all the material appears in page 2277. That's the page where the dissent criticized the employment of agency law, though the dissent explained its application in the previous page. The discussion over "common English" and the conclusion that Abramski was the "person" are also contained in the same page. WannaBeEditor (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WannaBeEditor: I just took another look at this. I think the "agency" argument begins on p. 2276 in the paragraph that begins "The government maintains ...." and continues on the next page (where J. Scalia talks about "ordinary English usage in the interpretation of this criminal statute"). Aside from this one footnote, I think the other citations are correct. You are doing nice work on this article! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done pointed to page 2276 as well. No point arguing this one out . . . WannaBeEditor (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need a citation for the claim that the case gained wide publicity (stated at the first sentence of the responses and analysis section).

Done I removed it. Though it is pretty much self evident from the article I guess its considered original research. WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are using Bluebook style citations; make sure that all footnotes conform to relevant style guidelines (see this guide from Boston University). You can use the SMALLcaps template ({{smallcaps}}) where relevant. I would also recommend piping the external URLs to reduce clutter (see the citations in United States v. Drayton for an example of how this is done).

Done I didn't pipe the links previously because it's not the blue book style per se, but I did now per your recommendation. I also applied the small caps where it was necessary. I didn't scrutinize thoroughly every citation, because I think I was relatively careful to include whatever possible and in the right format when first citing. Please point out if I made any mistakes. WannaBeEditor (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in coverage

In the background section, you should explain the difference between the primary and secondary market so that readers aren't surprised when they see the term for the first time in the "Opinion of the Court" section.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a little more about Kagan's arguments that Abramski's theory undermined the "core provisions" of the Act (see slip opinion at pp. 10-14)

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to include the "Deliverymen, after all, are not so hard to come by" quotation on p. 12 of the slip opinion.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also expand your discussion of part III of Justice Kagan's opinion; you should say a little more about Abramski's "no harm, no foul" argument.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

~~I wouldn't use the term "horrible injustice" in the lead-- I think this likely overstates the critics' concerns.~~

@Notecardforfree: It is John Lott's words quoted in the in Responses and analysis section.WannaBeEditor (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, though I did place the phrase "horrible injustice" in quotation marks to reflect the fact that Lott used the phrase. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Supreme Court" section, you summarize the views of the views of the NRA's amicus brief. Per WP:WEIGHT you should also include the views of the other Amicus briefs; this would probably work best if you presented a general summary of arguments that were shared by multiple different amici.

Done - I just added Brady Center's brief as a counter balance, I don't think an expanded discussion is really necessary. WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

There are no issues with stability.

Illustrated with images

Per usual Wikipedia convention for SCOTUS articles, I would recommend including a picture of Justice Kagan.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments not relevant to the GA criteria

In the first sentence of the lead, the article provides a sentence that describes part of the underlying factual background. I would recommend using the very first sentence to explain the case's holding or significance. Maybe you can say something like "Abramski was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a gun buyer cannot purchase a firearm on behalf of another" or something like that. Then in the next sentence you can say "the case arose when a former police officer from Virginia bought ...."
In general, I strongly encourage you to consolidate short paragraphs, and I also strongly recommend that you do not use single-sentence paragraphs. The purpose of a paragraph is to develop an idea or a topic; related sentences should be grouped together within the narrative structure of a single paragraph.

Done - WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these points. I will place this review on hold until the issues are resolved, but most of these are rather minor issues and I am confident that it won't take too much time to resolve them. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WannaBeEditor: you may have already received a notification on your watchlist, but I am giving you a courtesy ping to let you know this review is underway. I should also mention that my comments should not be construed as criticism of the incredible work you have done to write this article; you have clearly put a lot of hard work and many hours of research into this, and I commend your efforts. Wikipedia is certainly in need of editors who cover legal topics, and I hope you keep up the good work! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Notecardforfree, WannaBeEditor, where does this nomination/review stand? As far as I can tell, the last work done to the article and to this review page were both on October 5, 2016, over three weeks ago. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset- got so busy that I just couldn't get to it. I won't really have time until December. WannaBeEditor (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WannaBeEditor and BlueMoonset, I'd be happy to keep this review open through December; I think it makes more sense to continue the current review than to start one from scratch. I'm certainly in no rush (WP:NODEADLINE). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: Thanks, I think it makes sense too. BTW did you see my last email? WannaBeEditor (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WannaBeEditor: I did, and I just sent you a response. In terms of finishing this review, feel free to ping/email me whenever you want me to take another look at things. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree and WannaBeEditor: has there been any progress on this nomination? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Will get to it really soon, please leave it be for now. Thanks. WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I won't touch a thing. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten about. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notecardforfree, WannaBeEditor, I see a handful of edits on December 25, but nothing in the three weeks since. Where does this stand, and is sufficient progress being made? This has been open for over three and a half months now, which unusually long. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, thanks so much for checking in (and for all your other amazing efforts at GA). I have been in contact with WannaBeEditor, and I can confirm that sufficient progress is being made. We are making steady improvements here, and I am in no rush to close this while enhancements are forthcoming. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

WannaBeEditor, you have done fantastic work with this article! I am pleased to announce that it satisfies all GA criteria, and I am going to go ahead and close this as a passing review. Thank you very much for your strong work, and I look forward to reading more of your contributions in the future. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notecardforfree - Thanks. WannaBeEditor (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]