Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt/GA2

GA Review

PASSED

This article has passed its nomination --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 08:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should get to this in the next few days --DannyS712 (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

Lede: Who refers to it as Hyatt III? Source please
I remember it being referred to as such by an article; I'll look for it. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added Harvard Law Review reference. --MrClog (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background: Because an earlier ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2014 had limited FTB's liability to fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress (two torts), the maximum award was set at $100,000. - What was the earlier ruling? "an earlier ruling in Foo v. Bar by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2014" would help the reader be able to find the case
The court case is cited and quoted from at the end of the sentence (ref 11). Its name is Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt. Does it have to be included in the test, considering the name is almost the same as the name of the SCOTUS case or is it enough if it is cited at the end? --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background: As of May 13, 2019, an appeal is still pending. - update please
I have been looking for an update before I submitted the 2nd GAN, but couldn't find any RS reporting on it since Justice Thomas' May 13, 2019 opinion. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background: The U.S. Supreme Court had previously ruled in a similar case, namely the 1979 case Nevada v. Hall. - awkward phrasing, why "namely"?
Amended. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Supreme Court" image caption - The Supreme Court justices who decided on the 2019 case - Justices decide a case, not on a case
Amended. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: Why is the list of 44 states needed?
I feel like, in case someone is interested in knowing whether a state (or their state) signed the brief, it would be handy to have the list. In addition, it's pretty significant that 44 states sign the same brief. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MrClog: How about then listing the ones that didn't sign? "All but ___". Not important, its just pretty jarring to me to see the long list DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Amended. --MrClog (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm placing this on hold pending resolution of the issues noted above --DannyS712 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per responses above, issues that can be addressed have been. This now passes its good article nomination --DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.