Talk:McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 26, 2020. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 September 2020, and was viewed approximately 5,096 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after Ohio fined a woman $100 for not putting her name on a political leaflet, her estate appealed the fine all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.

Wikipedia

The third paragraph under Subsequent Law is based entirely on a single newspaper report from June 2011. That paragraph ends, "That bill is pending as of June 2011." Surely by now, five years later, the bill is, one way or the other, no longer pending. I have poked around a little but have not found its resolution. I will keep looking. Dgndenver (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talley v california through citizens united

this article could use a bit of work.

no mention of talley v california, the landmark case mcintyre built on. no discussion of citizens united, which may have created an exception for corporate speech.

i happen to know a lot about this case. gtbear at gmail aka arbitrary aardvark

came here hoping to find a photo of mcintyre. 50.90.215.156 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)robbin stewart[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 08:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Your GA nomination of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

Review Results

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): Reviewer Comments: Spelling and grammar are unremarkable. Prose are written academically and with fluency in a strong, unified voice. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: The article as a whole warrants this criterion to be satisfied. The lead section is remarkable and summarizes the article in a perfect number of words. I would consider looking over the Belotti and Buckley section to link the court cases, and even consider adding a `{{Main}}` or `{{See also}}` template to their respective case pages. While going off on a tangent about these cases is not appropriate for the page, providing easy access to additional information would be beneficial. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: Ref list is unremarkable. Subsections are broken down appropriately per MOS:ORDER. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: One of the most important elements of any court case is the outcome. While the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions are listed, along with the summary "7-2 vote", the article fails to cite this from 514 U.S. 334. I found that it is included on page 335, however, the article should list these citations in-line as it is part of a published opinion, and technically, is statistical as well. Additionally, while MOS:LEADCITE does not require citations in the lead section, it would be appropriate given the number of referenced cases, decisions and facts of the case. The allusion to analysis may also be complimented by a citation. While the last note would not warrant a hold on its own, when in conjunction with the other missing citations, I am marking criterion 2b as held for the time being. Please respond below when corrected so the review may be finalized. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: Content is free and clear of original research to the best of my knowledge. All sources that I verified were accurate and pertinent to their in-line counterpart. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: Do not be deceived by the suspiciously high confidence percentage. As with many Supreme Court related articles, the heavy use of quotation is expected when summarizing cases and court decisions. Most all content that appears in copyvio is properly cited quotations, or appropriately used common phrases when referring to this case. The few anomalies that do not fall into those two categories are too few to disqualify this article. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: The main topics of the article (being the case summary, outcome summary, and applicability in society) are covered in sufficient depth. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: While the Internet Autonomy section could be landscaped, it does not go too excessively on a tangent and most all of the information can be related to the case. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: When discussing majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, all sides are summarized well and neutrally. Likewise with analysis, all cases referenced avoid charged language and present arguments from either side. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: No significant edit controversies in the past 500 edits. All edits since start of 2020 have been by Mz7 only. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: All images are in the public domain per WP:PD b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: Although there are not many images, all are captioned remarkably well and in depth. Every image is relevant to it's respective section, and to the article as a whole.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: Please see 2b. Citations related to the categorization of justices based on opinion and lead section citations needed before review may be finalized.
· · ·

Additional Comments: This is a really good article and, holistically speaking, deserves GA status. Once corrected, this will be a beneficial addition to the GA list.

@Babegriev: Thank you for taking the time to review this article. In response to your notes on 2b, I made this change which cites the case's syllabus/headnote at page 335 as you suggested for the vote tally and list of case opinions. Regarding MOS:LEADCITE, as you mentioned, the guideline does not require inline citations to be present in the lead section in every article, and in this case I don't think they are necessary. I don't think anything in the lead section is all that controversial, since they are verifiable in the body, and other GA-class articles about Supreme Court cases have historically not needed inline citations in the lead, e.g. Lafler v. Cooper and Plumhoff v. Rickard. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns, and I would be happy to respond. Again, thanks. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Review After Hold

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): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: No change. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: Above hold criteria have been satisfied. Other suggestions have been deferred to nominator's discretion. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: No change. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: No change. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: No change. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: No change. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: No change. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: No change.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: Thank you to all who have taken the time to contribute to this article!
· · ·

@Babegriev: Thanks again for your review! Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Leaflet that was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case

... that after Ohio fined a woman $100 for not putting her name on a political leaflet (pictured), her estate appealed the fine all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? Source: "Even though the amount in controversy is only $100, petitioner, as the executor of her estate, has pursued her claim in this Court." Supreme Court decision, p. 340

Reviewed: Mercury pressure gauge
Comment: I quote the Court's decision (which incidentally is in the public domain) a lot in the article, so the Earwig Copyvio detector may trip a false positive.

Improved to Good Article status by Mz7 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]