Talk:Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton/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

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Review

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

Notes

• Can the photo "Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton" be shown bigger? Its currently tiny relative to the other photos and even relative to its caption

 Done ebbillings (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• the legislature would be able to continue to operate until the next legislative session when a political solution to this dispute can be reached. - changes tense from subjunctive to present in the middle of the sentence

 Done Sentence reworded. ebbillings (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I marked this as not broad because the article fails to explain why the original dispute arose. It says Dayton issued a letter explaining his vetoes; he sought to avoid a government shutdown while convincing legislative leaders to renegotiate provisions of the budgetary bills. but doesn't explain what he wanted to renegotiate. It also doesn't explain much about the broader significance of the case. Other than than, however, the article is pretty good.

 Partly done I have expanded the Background section with additional context surrounding the dispute and the particular provisions that Dayton wished to renegotiate. ebbillings (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I also expanded the Ruling of the Supreme Court section with additional information about the litigation history of the item veto power in Minnesota. DannyS712, does this sufficiently address your concerns about the breadth of the article? ebbillings (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

After further consideration, I also added an additional bit of summary to the Reactions to the ruling section. ebbillings (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ebbillings: unfortunately, it does not. I still fail to understand the broader significance of the case. How was this more significant than any other case between different branches of government controlled by different parties? Can you expand on the short-term effect on the budget, and the longer-term effect on the political situation in Minnesota? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added information to the Lower court ruling and Reactions to the ruling and aftermath sections that should explain the budgetary impacts of this case in a deeper way. ebbillings (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I also added information regarding the longer-term political situation, little of which was directly impacted by this case. ebbillings (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ebbillings: 2 issues, 1 minor, 1 not: you start two sentences in a row with "although", which seems odd, and can you explain what the "Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commission" is? How can they just "provide" the state legislature with funds? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Both issues addressed. (I would add a wikilink, but the LCC seems to be non-notable, and the Minnesota Legislature article does not currently contain a section or subsection about the group.) ebbillings (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This review is place on hold pending improvements as a result of the notes above. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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.