Talk:Morse v. Frederick/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I'm going to review this article, most likely in the next four or five days. Just glancing at it, I see inconsistency in italicizing the names of cases (i.e. Tinker).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~~Let me know if you find any other inconsistencies or instances where italics are needed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~

Comments: Not a bad effort, and very neutral in tone. I suggest the following:

Somewhere early on, there needs to be a brief discussion of student free speech, mentioning Tinker. Otherwise the lay reader has no context to judge this one.

Tinker now mentioned in lead. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is much too short. Surely it can be expanded to three reasonably sized paragraphs?

Expanding lead. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, especially in the facts of the case, and Frederick's suspensions, are certainly in order. I would simply use the facts as laid out in the statement of the case in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion.
You should put a non-breaking space before an ellipsis, which is three unspaced periods. Also, you should have a long dash in text, not a short one with spaces. I guess you most likely got that from a cut and paste. Why are the blockquotes italicized?

All done. Never quite certain when periods go within or outside of quotation marks, so feel free let me know if any are incorrect. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep a close eye. I'm going to be doing this rather piecemeal, so you'll have to bear with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider getting rid of the "Groups involved", mentioning that Frederick was represented by the ACLU early on, and perhaps have a section "Briefing" where you can mention the amici and also mention anything notable about the briefs filed, whether by the parties or amici. I gather the United States was invited by the Court to participate, and filed a brief?

I see that the parties later settled Frederick's state constitutional claims. But you say he filed with state and federal constitutional claims. Can you enlighten the reader on why it was there was anything left unresolved?

Added more detail about the settlement, Frederick's remaining claims, as well as the school's agreement to hire a neutral law expert to lead a forum at the school. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more brief things I just noticed:

The oral argument section is rather disjointed, I would not try to make it conversational, but give a paragraph to each lawyer, plus another to Starr because he reserved time for rebuttal. I would not say "In oral argument" halfway down the section; we know we're in oral argument. Also, the free speech cases that are cited, Tinker and Hazelwood and the other one, almost certainly have their own Wikipedia articles, you should link to them.

All court cases are linked to just once--the first time mentioned (apart from the lead) to avoid overlinking. Should they be linked throughout the article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Can I ask how you find the section disjointing? I feel it reads rather smoothly and chronologically, and that breaking it into sections would be harder to follow. I am not against making changes if needed to reach GA status, but I am wondering if creating sections is the best solution. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not creating sections. I think the paragraphs are too short and can be combined, and am suggesting having one for each attorney, with an additional one for Starr at the end, to discuss his rebuttal. So a total of four paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, ok. Thank you for the clarification. Hope it looks better now. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little editing myself. I really, though, suggest that you have your discussion of Tinker and its progeny as the first paragraph of "Background", to give the reader some context as to the state of the law regarding school 1st amendment rights. That's it for now, sorry this is slow but as you're jumping the queue at the Law GAN section, you should come out ahead! I think when all is said and done, this will be a GA.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! And I appreciate your edits. So should the first mention of Tinker be moved from the lead to the background section, or should that remain as well? I just wouldn't want to mention similar information at the end of the lead and the beginning of the next (and first) section. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go:

I would strike the mention of Tinker and Starr from the lede. I would start off the "Background section" with something like: While public school students in the United States enjoy free speech rights as do adults, the Supreme Court, in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, allowed public schools to restrict those rights in the school setting where they may cause disruption to the educational mission of the school. Subsequent cases have applied the holding in Tinker to different situations, but upheld the general principle." Something like that anyway, please feel free to mold it to fit the references you have.

*"Frederick sought declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees." Why is this quoted? I'm sure it is from the ref, but it so general, you can just say it, though I'd alter the words slightly. Maybe knock out the word unspecified. : Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC) -- *"... in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, (could a school) punish or censor a student's speech because it promotes a social message contrary to one favored by the school?" You don't need an ellipsis there. And if you are inserting text into a quote, use brackets inside <nowiki>this</nowiki>. It is the button above the text window with the W crossed out. Happens again elsewhere in the paragraph. Oddly, you do it correctly in the next paragraph.[reply]

Done. Removed ellipsis and replaced parentheses with brackets. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to that next paragraph, you are putting in an awful lot of inserted text there. I would suggest that you either cut back on it or put the unedited text in a footnote. Also, all quotes, must, and I say again, must have a reference not later than the end of the sentence. You do this throughout this article.

Even if the quote comes from the same source used to cite the previous sentence? I always assumed having a source after each quoted sentence or phrase would be distracting. Are there specific instances where this needs to be addressed? --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Regarding the circuit court's decision, Juneau school district superintendent Peggy Cowan expressed," I really don't think you need the first clause. Both the subsection and the quote make it clear what she is talking about. I'd also find a different word than "expressed". Perhaps "stated"? : Done. Removed beginning of sentence and replaced "expressed" with "stated". --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you move the "Groups involved" section here. Call it "Representation and amici curiae". Then mention that the ACLU represented Frederick, that Starr represented Morse, and that the US was invited to participate by the Supreme Court. Then put in the info about the amici. That makes the jump from cert granted to oral argument less glaring. If you can find out anything about the briefs, put it in its own subsection, but I think that is really something you'd have to do to get this to FA.

Oral arguments: You need a ref after each quote. I wouldn't call someone Mr.; what's his first name? I'd use it. It's got to be in the court's decision; they always list counsel. You list cases cited by each party, I'd at least say "the school free speech cases of Hazelwood ... " I'd capitalize "Government" and say "in his support" rather than "in his favor"

Believe I now have ref after each quote. However, I have no idea who Emborg is, even after searching through the slip opinion and the oral argument transcript. Perhaps I am overlooking something? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majority opinion: "the pro-drug banner" I think that's disputed. You can say "what he termed a pro-drug banner" if he said that.

*"The opinion first concluded" opinions don't conclude (until, that is, the ending), people do. I'd say "Chief Justice Roberts", or "The Chief Justice" or "Roberts".

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned Hazelwood at least three times by now. Why are you giving its cite to the United States Reports here, in particular? Same with Tinker. I suggest giving full name and cite the first time, then just referring to it by the short name.

Done. Cite to USR is only given the first time (plus for Tinker in the lead). Used Tinker, Hazelwood and Bethel School District as short names. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Is it usual to link to the opinion by clicking on the page number? I haven't done any SCOTUS articles, so perhaps you should tell me.

~~Not sure. I do not typically work with law articles myself. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~

In this instance, can't be done -- it hasn't yet been published in sources that permit that. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 02:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Roberts issued a narrow decision ..." You definitely need a cite for that.

*You refer to Thomas's actions both in the present tense and in the past tense. I would make it the past tense exclusively. : Done. Changed "writes" to "wrote". --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*You do the same thing for Justice Alito. Can you rephrase your description of his concurrence? It isn't very clear as it stands. But you shouldn't start a sentence with a but, it isn't favored.. : Done. Changed "agrees" to "agreed", "opposes" to "opposed", "insists" to "insisted". --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I very much appreciate your assistance, but I'm afraid I am not even a primary author of this article. I am a member of WikiProject Cannabis, looking for improve articles relating to cannabis. I thought this article was in great shape and capable of obtaining Good status with some minor edits and improvements. However, I see the article needs much more work that I predicted initially. I am certainly not lazy, but I am not too familiar with law or court cases, so I am not certain I would even know how to cite some of the quotations used. This is my first experience with the GA process, so please forgive me for trying to work with an article I am not too familiar with and for wasting your time. Please know that your assistance truly is greatly appreciated--I simply feel I am not qualified in this instance to make all of the changes needed for GA status. I have made a request for other WikiProject members to assist with improving the article, but I am not sure if my request will be answered to. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my standards are high, as I usually deal with FA. If you feel another reviewer might come closer to what you need, please feel free to let me know. I will keep the review open as long as there is any hope of it being improved, so at least two weeks. Why don't you give it a shot? I don't come from the school that the reviewer can't get his hands dirty and am happy to do some editing and give advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I very much appreciate your encouragement. I have no problem with high standards, nor am I unwilling to give it an effort, but I just wasn't sure I was familiar enough with law to properly cite quotations. I will be happy to work on it gradually, and we can see if anyone else jumps in to help. I do have family in town this week, but I will try to get on and make improvements. Thanks again for your support and encouragement! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. You're worried about page numbers. Well, no need to reinvent the wheel, why not look at WP:GA for any court cases that have made it, and see how they do it?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems about standard for a GA review - see the review of Alfred Denning, Baron Denning for example. One thing I feel I have to chip in - it has virtually no third party inlines. Things mentioned in external links should really be weaved in - the yale law journal did a feature. Why isn't that in the article? Of the 47 inlines I count 8 from third party references, which really isn't good enough I'm afraid. It might be good to get someone more involved with the article to chip in with the review. Ironholds (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to bring that up, that it might be best to have some sort of "reactions" or "media coverage" section, which would require some newspaper cites, but I didn't want to give AB too much to deal with at one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Ironholds. I have requested assistance from a few active users that worked on the article in the past, hoping someone can come help out a bit. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Agradman has made several edits to the article, which might require a new examination from Wehwalt and other reviewers. I hope you find the changes to be satisfactory. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. I'm out of town and you're third on my list, so I may not post significant comments until Monday or Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, the density of text on this page is overwhelming. Would it be appropriate for me to "strike-through" (or, better yet, aggregate and collapse) the comments that have been implemented? (Meanwhile, I'm going to try to integrate some third-party inlines.) Agradman ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite a bit of text--perhaps a collapsible top would help with organization. I would just make sure that concerns that have been addressed are still addressed given the recent edits made. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me. Two quick things, just from looking over the article, which looks much better than it did:

This case did not happen in a vacuum. I really think it needs a media reaction section. I remember it was heavily discussed at the time; the media frankly hoped the Court would reverse Hazelwood.

I'd add an additional paragraph to the lede, discussing the Supreme Court's decision.

I will have a batch of picky things, but the end is in sight. I think that you need to spend time letting us know what public reaction was. Shouldn't be hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article school speech and made sure it has wikilinks in the strategic spots of the article.

Also, those of you who have access to HeinOnline, Lexis Nexis, etc. may find the following third-party citations useful -- these were the most promising out of the 270ish existing law review articles that mention this case.

Agradman ^talk/_contribs 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1

12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 17

12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 27

12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 45

12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 61

12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 111

77 UMKC L. Rev. 569

42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 637

42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 661

12 UC Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol'y 427

30 U. La Verne L. Rev. 39

42 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 427

35 S.U. L. Rev. 487

53 S.D. L. REV. 100

29 Pace L. Rev. 151

33 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 879

53 Loy. L. Rev. 355

26 Law & Ineq. J. 401

37 J.L. & Educ. 463

41 Ind. L. Rev. 105

43 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 239

97 Geo. L.J. 1057

77 Fordham L. Rev. 251

60 Fla. L. Rev. 63

57 Emory L.J. 1259

38 Cumb. L. Rev. 371

41 Creighton L. Rev. 481

57 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1183

37 Cap. U.L. Rev. 201

74 Brooklyn L. Rev. 439

60 Baylor L. Rev. 1046

2009 BYU Educ. & L. J. 1

2008 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 593

2008 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 971

OK, I added two new sections, ==Academic Commentary== and ==Subsequent judicial interpretations==.

Another Believer, I appreciate your ambition in taking on this article! I hope it shakes us law wikipedians out of our slumber. At present, there is only one Supreme Court Case article that's "featured", and seven that are "Good". That partly reflects our apathy, and partly reflects the difficult fact that our community has to compare these articles against a pretty rigorous scholarly standard. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I was a bit overwhelmed, so I am glad you were able to jump in and assist. One thing I noticed: See how under the 'Certiorari and oral arguments' section the court cases have the numbers and years after them? I think that only needs to be done the first time they are mentioned in the article. Also, I noticed cases are linked several times thoughtout the article--again, I think they only need to be linked the first time, and I think abbreviations like Tinker or Hazelwood can be used following the first instance. I didn't want to make the changes myself just yet, in case you are still moving things around. Again, I very much appreciate your assistance, and I look forward to getting some feedback regarding the "new" version of the article. Between all involved, I think this article will end up very informative and organized. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a law Wikipedian, my law FA's are both current events: Natalee Holloway and Jena Six. Dissecting cases is too much like law school (which really wasn't that bad, but even so). And while I am not taking the Professor Kingsfield approach, I strongly believe a law article, to get the bling, has to be correct in terminology, comprehensive and helpful to both a lawyer and a lay person consulting it. And while law review cites are great, I still think that there needs to be more public/newspaper reaction. Go run Slate's archives, they are free, so is Time Magazine, Google is starting to get some newspapers online and certainly check Google books, there's a lot out there.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I note the following:

I think it is unnecessary to devote a subsection to each of the academic commentators (and, keep in mind, Starr is counsel for one of the parties.). I'd sum each up on a sentence. I still think you need a public reaction section. The one you have, with the quote by the superintendent, isn't good enough and it's mislabeled anyway, because she is not part of the public, she's an employee of a party. Have you looked at Google Scholar for additional academic quotes?

I'd like you to structure it well first, then I will go through and do a detailed further review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't keep the nom open any longer, so I've declined to pass it. Good luck, looking forward to seeing it again!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. Some improvements were made, but honestly I am not even sure if the original suggestions made apply to the newer additions made to the article. So much change to keep track of. Perhaps we can give it another shot in the future. I, for one, plan on staying far away from law articles. :p Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.