Talk:Regents of the University of California v. Bakke/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one. Comments in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UC Davis needs to be meet consistent (with hyphen or without, with periods or without). -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only made it through the lead tonight and glanced at the rest, but my first impression is that this looks quite good. Shouldn't be much to do before passing. Will finish tomorrow, hopefully. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This was unsatisfactory to black students and activists of the late 1960s" -- unclear in this phrasing if the activists who felt this way were also black--which it doesn't like they would all be.
Should Navy ROTC be Naval instead? It looks like that's where the article is.
"Dr. Theodore West" -- is this the interviewer, I take it? That might be clarified. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it through the first pass of the article, and this looks solid. It covers the main aspects (I double-checked it against the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution entry), is well-referenced, and neutral. Only a few minor action points above, and I'll proceed to the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea!!! I think we've done really well. Thank you, Khazar2. And thank you, Wehwalt. I may have helped out a little, but it's the two of you who did the heavy lifting. Your efforts took an article which was good and made it even better, easily reaching GA status. Yea!!! And if we have the energy, maybe keep rolling? I mean, try and make it even better if we can! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you did some work too. Once the dust settles, I would suggest listing it for a peer review and look at nominating it for Featured Article after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to nominate it for peer review fairly soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See minor clarity suggestions above~~ Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002104.html and other sources suggests main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

As a side note, I'd suggest adding a picture of Lewis F. Powell, Jr. to the USSC consideration section (I'm assuming no free pictures of Bakke are available), but this isn't necessary for GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A minor accuracy question--did Bakke spend his career at Mayo or did he do his residency there? This source suggests the latter, but you've read more sources about this than I have. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He did both. The source actually says that he was still there as of 1999 and he'd be about sixty then. That's a fair enough career. I'll work though these in the next day.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got those now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank both you guys for all the fresh energy. I think we have definitely made some improvements. Kind of my wish list from this point out might be the following:

I think our first paragraph should include in more layperson's terms, the Court found hard quotas unacceptable, but affirmative action with race as a plus factor okay. And I believe Justice Powell in his decision spoke favorably of the program at Harvard. And if we can find the quote, maybe the whole quote about properly tailored, etc.

And I think in our lead section we should state that the real world facts on the ground, that what initially kept Allan Bakke out of medical was his age. That not only did he have better qualifications than the average Task Force admittee, but he also had better qualifications than the average admittee in general. That the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 (?) barred discrimination against persons older than 40, but the 1975 Act was not going to come into play until . . '79 (?). To me, this is not going too far afield. To me, this is adding richness and context.

And I want to add the above part from O’Neill's book about the apparent abuse of power by the UC Davis chair of admissions. That the man was against Bakke, and quized him, and gave him just enough of a low interview score, because of his political views. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done those things, FRO. I think the Powell quote might be too much detail for the lede paragraph, which should be the utter bare essentials.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need to clean up something I said. From the very first section at the top of our Talk page, the actual phrase Justice Powell used may have been "properly devised." This is just for future reference and perhaps another part of our article. I agree the lead paragraph should be for the bare essentials. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]