Jump to content

Talk:Miranda Du

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miranda Du. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Miranda Du/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

​Interesting article! Because it was nice and concise, I was able to read through it fairly quickly. Only minor issues below.

Infobox
  • The first two citations verify the year of birth, but is there a citation for her exact DOB inside of the infobox?
Early life and education
  • Winfield – you could link this to Winfield, Alabama, since the other city names are linked
Federal judicial career
  • Du became the first Asian Pacific American to serve as an Article III judge in Nevada – Heh, perhaps I'm just unlearned, but I wasn't familiar with the term "Article III judge" and had to look it up. I fear this term may not be common knowledge to non-technical readers. We could potentially reword it to simply "federal judge" or alternatively link the phrase "Article III judge" to United States federal judge, which mentions the phrase in the "Tenure and salary" section.
  • Du is part of the court's Patent Pilot Program – Similarly, for readers unfamiliar with this program, we could include a brief explanation of what this entails.
  • Cite note 9, the ABA rating of her judicial nomination, is a dead link now — I recommend adding the |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters (see Template:Cite web#Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "url-status") for webpages that have been archived), with a link to an archived copy of the source.
    • As a side note to this: this is more of a minor nitpick, but when citing web sources, in general it's a good idea to include the date you accessed the source, especially if the publication date of the source is unknown (see WP:CITEWEB). I don't think it's important enough to prevent this from passing GAN, but it'd be a good bibliographic detail to have.
  • The "Notable decisions" section is well-researched and looks pretty comprehensive. As a stylistic tip for the future (not required for this GAN), I recommend grouping some of the cases into the same paragraph, e.g. cases that relate to the same kind of issue, or cases that happened in the same year. This would help avoid the issue of WP:Proseline, whereby the article turns into a repetitive timeline/list structure that isn't always the best style.

Overall, really good work improving the article from this state just a few months ago. Let me know if you have any questions—I'm pretty flexible, so if you don't agree with something I wrote, I'd be happy to discuss it. Mz7 (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful review, thanks. I've made some edits along the lines of what you suggested, most prominently a topical organization under "notable decisions." (The only thing I didn't do is access-dates, which I prefer not to use unless the source is undated or the access date is really significant.) Let me know how this looks. Neutralitytalk 01:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: I like the reorganization! I have a quick question about one of the new passages you added:
  • affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, which agreed with Du that the issue was moot because the federal government had completed all its contemplated plutonium shipments to Nevada — Did Du deny the state's request because it was moot? Looking at the sources, it looks like Du issued her decision before she knew the issue was moot. Looks like this source contains a bit more detailed background on Du's reasoning.
Thanks for your quick work on this! Give me a few moments to catch up. Mz7 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch - I've added some edits to clarify matters. Neutralitytalk 19:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Passing now. Mz7 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Neutralitytalk 15:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 SL93 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Neutrality (talk). Self-nominated at 16:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article passed GA review on July 22 and nominated one day later. Length is adequate. Article meets sourcing requirements. Article is neutral in tone. No plagiarism issues detected, any areas highlighted by the Earwig tool were direct quotes or proper nouns. All images used in the article are properly licensed. QPQ requirement is complete. Hook is interesting, but my only concern is with the wording. The word "first" could be misinterpreted in such that she came to the USA more than once, or because her first stop was actually Malaysia as Vietnamese boat people. The hook also sounds like she took a boat all the way from Vietnam to the USA, which I don't think is intended. Any objections to removing the word "first" or submitting a different hook? Flibirigit (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flibirigit: No objections - I've dropped "first." Neutralitytalk 02:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 approved. Hook is interesting, properly cited inline and verified with the sources. Nomination adheres to all other DYK criteria. Flibirigit (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

@KidAd: I have to disagree with your removal of the lead section. In general, a lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic—see MOS:LEAD. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or precedent which supports your idiosyncratic view that a lead should not repeat biographical information "found in the next section". For most readers, the lead is the only section of the article they will read, so it is important that we summarize all of the body, not just the sections of the body after the first section. Courtesy ping to Neutrality, since they were the main author of this article. Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, thank you for your message. While I understand your point, I do not believe paring down a clunky lede to be idiosyncratic. Based on the pages of other judges, using this master list, it is not commonplace to include birthdate/place and education-related material in the lede – especially not in the first sentence. Selecting some similar pages at random, (William H. Steele (judge), Ralph R. Beistline, William Q. Hayes, Nancy J. Rosenstengel) the lede section of these pages do not include biographical material found in the first section. I am fully aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that this is a "good article," but there does seem to be a reason that other District Court judge pages don't do this. KidAd talk 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention one other point. Per WP:LEDE, As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. Du, like other judges, is notable for being a judge. She is not notable for where was born or where she went to college and law school. This material is an important material for a complete biography, but not integral to her notability. KidAd talk 17:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miranda_Du&oldid=1257702997"