Talk:Nix v. Hedden/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead section. Footnote number should be after the comma: see WP:CITE.

   The case. Use double instead of single quotation marks to enclose word like "fruit" and "vegetables" (except if the single quotations were used in direct quotations): see WP:MOS#Quotation characters. Block quotes do not need to be enclosed in quotation marks: see WP:MOS#Block quotations.

   The Court's decision. Remove the quotation marks from the block quote. Remove the external link from the page number "42". For consistency, remove the spaces around the em dash.

   Subsequent history. Remove the quotation marks from the block quote. Suggest you put a space between "F." and "2d" in the citation. Footnote 2 should end with a period.

   External links. How similar is Rocknel Fastener, inc v. United States to this case? Is it really relevant enough to be mentioned?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • The article currently lacks sufficient inline citations. At the very least, each paragraph should have a footnote at the end of it to indicate the source of the information. This is particularly important for direct quotations. If you are citing from the report of the case, indicate the page numbers of the case where the information and quotations were obtained from.
   • A book entitled Legal Ramblings is indicated in the "References" section, but there are no inline citations to it in the main body of the article.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • I think a bit more background information about the case is required. The section entitled "The case" jumps straight into a discussion of the parties' arguments as to whether the tomato should be regarded as a fruit or a vegetable. I think the article should say something about why this issue arose in the context of the Tariff Act 1883.
   • Similarly, in the section entitled "The Court's decision", the implications of the Court's conclusions about the tomato being a vegetable on the Tariff Act issue to be set out. The case was not brought by the plaintiffs simply because they were interested to know whether the tomato was a fruit or vegetable, but because it had some significance in relation to the Act. This should be explained.
   • Please elaborate on how the case was a "precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions".
   • "In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited Nix as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the official state vegetable." This sounds interesting; can more details be provided?

   B. Focused:

   • The sentence "Justice Gray ... stated that when words have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce the ordinary meaning must be used by the court" is puzzling to me, and I think it requires a bit more explanation. If certain words have acquired a special meaning in trade or commerce, why must the court ignore that special meaning and give the words an ordinary meaning instead?
   • "In this case dictionaries cannot be admitted as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court." Explain why this is the case. Is this a principle limited to the facts of the case? If so, why?
4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Apart from the above, the article is generally well written. I will put the GA review on hold so that you can improve the article. This page is on my watchlist, so leave any questions you have for me here, as well as a notification when you have finished working on the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this article. Two weeks have passed, but no one has revised the article. Any editor interested in trying to take this article to GA status again is welcome to make the changes suggested above, relist the article at "Wikipedia:Good article candidates", and contact me for a further review. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)