Talk:Joint custody (United States)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 00:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Many instances remain of citation overkill. Once there are more than two citations on a single sentence, it becomes really difficult to figure out which reference goes with what part of the sentence.

As of now, there should not be any sentences with more than two citations. --Brb94 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence in the lead seems unnecessary - makes me think of those intro paragraphs from school papers. If you want to bring items from the article into the lead, give brief details that summarize the important content from those sections. I try to have at least one lead sentence per section.

For now I just eliminated the sentence. I will add a bit more to the introduction over the week to make it a bit more comprehensive based on your ideas you mentioned. --Kgw2 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four links in article go to disambiguation pages. Click on disambig links in the toolbox in the upper right to find them. Figure out where the links should actually go to and fix 'em.

There should not be any redirecting back to the page or disambiguation pages linked now. --Kgw2 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visitation is a disambiguation that is still used. AstroCog (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visitation should be fixed now as well. --Kgw2 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the article with eye to eliminating unnecessary adverbs, such as 'very'. For example, in the "History..." section, is there a meaningful difference between 'very little' and just 'little'? Check over the article to make sure these instances are not used too often. AstroCog (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary adverbs have been removed for the most part. --Kgw2 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Gayle Smith and Sally Abrahms? When you saying something like "According to John Doe..." you need to explain why his opinion/explanation is relevant. So, "According to John Doe, a recognized expert on family law at Great Big University Law School..." would be the format. AstroCog (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The expertise of Gayle Smith was added to the article to validate her as a source. --Kgw2 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check over the article for ways to improve the wikilinks. I see several instances where the wikilink is somewhat trivial, e.g. marriage. The first section is well-linked, but subsequent sections have a noticeably lower density of wikilinks. Go over the article with an eye to linking terms and words that a general reader is likely to want to know more about. If you link it, make sure it is linked in the first use the word or term in the article, and then not again after that. Words and terms that a general reader is not likely to need more information on probably don't need a link, but I'll leave that as a judgement call for the editors here. AstroCog (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some were added, others were deleted, I will work more on this later however to try an improve it even more. --Kgw2 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all I have for this article in terms of prose and MOS.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Plenty of refs and they all seems to be cited properly.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This will take me longer. I put out a call on WikiProject Law for an expert to take a look at this for accuracy and scope.

It appears to be focused to me. I don't see any major diversions in the article.
Are there any high-profile or major cases that established the joint custody laws, which can be discussed in the history section? The whole article seems quite abstract to me, without any concrete examples or situations. If any high-profile/major cases were covered in reliable sources, I think they should be added.

There were not any cases mentioned in pretty much everything we read. I could see if I could find out some information regarding cases though if you think the article needs it. --Kgw2 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
~~Will come back to this.~~ Looks good to me.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
I realize that students are working on this and there may have been many edits recently. It looks relatively stable now, but let's see what happens this week.

Looks relatively stable now.

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):
Well, no images at all. However, I'm not sure what images are appropriate for this topic.
Overall: ~~Article will be put on hold until remaining concerns are addressed.~~ Many improvements made which addressed concerns. The article looks much better now.
Pass/Fail:

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comprehensiveness, I think we might have discussed it briefly in class, but are there any sources on history of this concept in US - when was it introduced first, where there any landmark cases, and such? Also, a brief paragraph on differences between joint custody in US and the rest of the world would be useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed without a progress report here. I'd very much like to see an update from the students; please note that no activity for a week is grounds to close the review due to no activity of the editors. Since this article is so close to a GA, it would be a shame if it was to fail due to such a technicality and poor communication. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it went by so long without an update. After Thanksgiving I went to work on this and my mom apparently forgot to pay the internet bill, so we lost TV/Phone/Internet for about 4 or so days so I was not able to log on to do much of anything (apparently you can do nothing from an iPhone in terms of editing). This week I intend to look more closely at the history and at the issue of a major court case (I had no luck looking for the past hour now). Other than that the issue of bundling is still up, but I simply do not know how to do it, so that will be a task I reserve for Friday when I have some time at home to look at how other articles did it. I also have to fix the linking, which will tentatively be updated tonight. --Kgw2 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished adjusting the references from the "citation overkill" problem. Each sentence will be more clear now that there will be, at most, two citations per sentence. --Brb94 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]