Jump to content

Talk:Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]


Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Footnotes should go after the punctuation, not before.
    "with the finality of certain arbitration decisions."->"with the finality of trial court decisions to uphold arbitration agreements."
    Reword: " there was no way to vacate the initial judge's decision."
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    11th Circuit decision should be supported by footnotes to the 11th circuit opinion.
    How about parallel cites to L.Ed. and S.Ct.?
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Explain that Randolph claimed that the uncertain costs of arbitration undercut her rights under the Truth in Lending Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
    Can you explain what effects this case had? Were there more arbitrations as a result? Are there any law review articles discussing this case?
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has not participated in Wikipedia since March 13, the day before this review. I have reached out to him without a response, so I am respectfully failing the article, with the hope that he comes back, considers the concerns noted, and renominates after revising the article. I am sorry that it did not work out. Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]