Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article. It may take me a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will get back with a full review not later than the weekend. Just reading the article makes me wonder what the effects of Barrett have been. What was the media reaction, has it served as precedent in other cases, is there law review or other scholarly discussion? As it is, the curtain is rung down as soon as the court renders its decision. By the by, was there an attempt to get a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review Certainly a promising article. My comments:

1. Beware of overlinking. I think "defendant" is a common term and doesn't need to be linked, for example. Elsewhere in lede, "women's health advocate" is perhaps a politically correct term? I mean, everyone supports women's health. Can you say it more forthrightly?
2. Factual background. Can you fill this out a bit? Certainly excerpts from the letters would be an aid to the reader.
3. Lower court proceedings. Even as a lawyer, I find this confusing. I would suggest emphasising in the trial court's decision that the claims filed by each of the plaintiffs were dismissed. The current language concerning the appellate court's decision, "The appellate court upheld the dismissal against Grell and Barrett, but vacated the decision as against Polevoy." make it sound like the three are defendants, not plaintiffs. Perhaps "upheld the dismissal of the claims brought by"? Grated, with three plaintiffs and a number of defendants, it is a complicated history, but I think it can be made clearer. Also, SLAPP should be linked where the first occurrence is.
4. You've obviously borrowed heavily in the procedural history from the Cal SC decision, but please be careful to make terms like "Plaintiffs" lower case.
5. Did the other plaintiffs cross-petition to try to revive their claims? The Cal SC discussion seems to imply that they did.
6. Putting a discussion of a concurring opinion in the middle of the section makes it unclear if everything after that is discussion of the concurrence, or of the majority opinion. Please rephrase.
7. What happened on remand, the libel suit?
8. With the exception of the comment that the case was a landmark decision, this article is in a vacuum, and this is the greatest weakness. Was there public reaction? Have other cases followed it? Has there been scholarly comment, in law reviews? It's all unstated. You can't pull a GA out of the text of an appellate decision, you need to put things in context.
9. Any chance of images, even fair use?

I'll put this on hold and await developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]