Talk:Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 17:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this one a review; seems like an interesting subject. Wizardman 17:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "The students sought a declaration that their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment[7] rights had been violated," what part of the 14th amendment? The 1st amendment is well-established throughout the article, to the point that the other one showing up here surprised me, especially since that's the only point it shows up in the article. I would imagine it's Due Process since the paper was changed under the student's noses; perhaps that should be added in if the sources do note a specific part.
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Can you make it a bit clearer who said the second quote? I'm presuming it was also White's majority opinion since there's no concurrent opinion, but I want to be sure.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• "A notable 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit court decision," not big on using notable there, particularly when it's not used anywhere else in the article.
  • In this case, included the word because this case is oft cited in media law, but most of the time it's only to reaffirm the ruling or something like that. The 2005 case is notable in that it strengthened the ruling here with additional arguments. —Ed!^(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very well-done article. It took what seemed like a murky, borderline situation that got thrown to the U.S. Justices and made it easily understandable on both sides. I'll put the article on hold and will pass when the above is fixed. Wizardman 22:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'll pass this article. Wizardman 12:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)