Talk:Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Review

• Feels like 1 sentence is needed in the LEAD about aftermaths & legal developments
  • The denial of cert was in the first lede paragraph; I've added a sentence about the 11th Circuit's ruling.
• Would suggest each paragraph should have at least one in-line citation and the first paragraph of District Court lacks one
  • I've added the CNN cite
• I'm missing where either the Tribune or Slate articles (which I'm presuming to be the sources for the paragraph) back-up the claim "Despite other educators who were hired after Hively having been given full-time positions, Hively was not."
  • CNN: "Working on a semester-to-semester basis, Hively said she applied for six to seven full-time teaching and administrative positions after earning a graduate degree in 2011. But she was denied. She said other employees who had been hired after were given full-time work. She also alleged other treatment such as reduced hours."
• Should make clear why she had difficulty finding a lawyer
  • This seems like a relatively minor part that few reliable sources have covered in much depth. I tried and failed to try to add it in somewhere.
• What was the 2000 precedent the 3 judge panel felt bound by?
  • Added sources and a note
• What's the source for "Following an amicus curiae brief from the ACLU, in October 2016, the full Court voted to rehear the case and vacate the older ruling."? Current wording suggests the brief from the ACLU caused the vote to rehear which doesn't seem supported in the sources I'm looking at
  • I've removed the note about the ACLU
• Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins should be linked some where in the clause that begins relying on the Supreme Court's holding that discrimination. Perhaps as a piped link?
  • Done
• I've cleaned up a few places where you put the period after a quote that ends a sentence. The period should go inside the quotation
  • Wait, doesn't MOS:LQ indicate against that?
• Second, Wood held that discrimination basis of an employee's intimate partner constitutes "associational discrimination." should have an inline citation because of the quote
  • Done
• I know what it means when it says "The Court" but am wondering if its regular use is too technical and not clear to the lay reader given that the court is the 7th Circuit of Appeals (as opposed to when it's the Supreme Court). Genuine question that I'm not sure about.
  • I've clarified in a few places
• The Court did not find that Ivy Tech had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation – rather, the Court determined that the case should not have been dismissed. could probably be written more clearly
• The full names of judges (e.g. Flaum, Posner, etc) should be used when they're first referred to in the article
• Can in which he agreed that sex discrimination should be prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. be made more clear?
• Aftermath and legal developments really feels like one section not two
• The Court's decision in Hively made the Seventh Circuit the highest federal court to find sexual orientation discrimination unlawful. needs an in-line citation
• The New York Times called the ruling a "significant victory for gay rights" and noted that five of the eight judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents. also needs an in-line citation
• The ruling resulted in a circuit split, with which circuit?
• The Supreme Court part of that sentence feels like speculation given that Ivy Tech didn't appeal (who is probably worth naming rather than calling the defendant)
• "cert petition" should be defined as with other legal technical terms or else just use the more formal version that was explained in the previous paragraph
• The extended comment under Background should probably be removed or else developed.

Discussion

Plan to start this either over the weekend or more likely next week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@L235: My first read through is complete. Comments above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@L235: Friendly ping. Any update? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: So incredibly sorry for the delay. I anticipate being much more active than I am now (see my contribs) starting in about a week. best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@L235: Update? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@L235: I know you did some work over the weekend. Given how long it has been open I would like to close it one way or another, ideally by Sunday. If you don't have time to do any more I will do another read through and pass or fail it for the criteria based on its state then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I've been a terrible GA nominator and you've been far too patient – please feel free to close this as failed based on the current state of the article. You deserve a barnstar for this wait! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)