Talk:Circuit split/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk · contribs) 21:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key

Text in black indicates that there are no issues.
Text in red indicates that there are issues that must be resolved - or at least addressed as best as possible - before the article is passed.
Text in brown indicates that there are issues that if resolved would improve the article, but which are either minor or not part of the GAN criteria, and thus will not prevent the article from being promoted even if they are not addressed.

Review

1) Well Written:

For the most part, the article is very well written, and it's easy to follow for someone that isn't a legal scholar. The prose is clear and concise, the spelling and grammar are fine, and it meets the MoS guidelines for lead section and layout.
I'm not 100% sure that the list in the "Examples of existing circuit splits" meets the MoS lists guideline, but I think that the quality of the article would be harmed by changing that section, so I'm going to that it does, under the "Long sequences" acceptable use.
I'm also not 100% sure that the article meets the MoS on words to watch. The article relies overly heavily on the word "some", with "some scholars" alone appearing seven times. This really does need to be tightened up; who specifically is saying what (Legal scholars A, B, and C contend that X... On the other hand, Professor D and Judge E contend Y)? When some say X and some say Y, is it evenly balanced or are the majority saying X?
"When a circuit split occurs, courts of appeals are rarely evenly divided with regard to how the dispute should be resolved." - I assume that this refers to multiple circuit courts, i.e. four find X and one finds Y, but that could use being made explicit.

2) Verifiable with no original research:

The article passes the Earwig copyvio scan.
Everything that might be contentious is cited, and all of the sources look reliable. There's a template on the talk page that refers to a specific citation style, and I'm going to assume good faith that everything meets that style, since I've never worked with it before.

3) Broad in its coverage:

I can only think of one aspect of the topic that feels missing: If a case is accepted by the Supreme court because of a circuit split, how are the circuits or their views involved/represented? Do the different involved circuits have any role in oral arguments? Do they present briefs? Or is it just that each side in a case makes their arguments based on the findings of the circuit(s) whose decisions benefit their side?
The article stays focused on the main topic without getting sidetracked by tangents.

4) Neutral:

There's nothing in here that would suggest editorial bias or undue weight, but the red comment in section 1 comes into play here as well. With everything using "some", it's difficult to tell of one theory is dominant.

5) Stable:

Yes.

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:

This topic doesn't lend itself easily to images, but you found one, and it's in the public domain.

7) Conclusion:

This article is in very good shape and is 95% of the way there. There are two issues, pointed out above, that should be addressed first though. Please respond below the line when you're done, or if you have any questions/comments/disagreements. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up from Notecardforfree

First and foremost, I want to thank you for taking the time to complete this GA review. I know that reviewing articles takes a significant amount of time and effort, and I very much appreciate your willingness to review this rather arcane topic. Here is what I have done to address the issues you identified above:

Words to watch: You are absolutely correct that I relied upon vague references to "some scholars" far too many times in the article. With the exception of the lead and the introductory paragraph in the "Significance of circuit splits" section, I replaced every mention of "some scholars," "some commentators," etc. with the name of the individual(s) who made that claim. If you think there are still portions of the article that require further specificity, let me know. There is really no dominant perspective in the scholarship, and the underlying doctrinal issues have divided our nation from its earliest years (see Federalism in the United States).
"When a circuit split occurs ..." I changed "courts of appeals are rarely evenly divided" to "there is rarely an even numeric division among courts of appeals" per your suggestion. I think this is much clearer now.
Representing the views of circuits when resolving circuit splits:" The questions you present here are a little more nuanced than you may have intended. With a few very rare exceptions, courts (including federal circuit courts of appeals) are not parties to cases and therefore neither argue nor brief a case that arrives in the Supreme Court of the United States. Parties will often cite circuit precedent that is favorable to their positions, but judicial ethics forbid circuit judges from commenting on cases that are actively pending. Consequently, circuit judges will occasionally write opinions in an attempt to persuade the Supreme Court. However, as I explain in the section titled "Specialization among circuit courts of appeals," studies suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to affirm decisions of circuit courts when the circuit court has ruled on a case for which they possess special expertise. In terms of expanding the breadth of the article to address your concerns, I have added a paragraph to the "Resolving circuit splits" section that should hopefully answer some of your questions. Let me know if you think this still requires expansion.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks again for reviewing this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I appreciate all of the changes that you've made as part of this review. I think that this article is in excellent shape, and meets the Good Article criteria. As such, I am pleased to promote this article to GA status. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]