Talk:Ronald M. George/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Version initially reviewed is 434216674

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
When checked against MS Word, the sentence "George was lauded for his extremely unusual decision to deny the motion by Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to dismiss all 10 counts of murder against Buono, although his unusual decision was speculated to be a result of his earlier decision to separate crucial counts of rape and sodomy, which in themselves would serve as evidence against the accused, from the murder charges." was tagged as a long sentence. Consider revising it, or splitting it.
Done with this edit. OCNative (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "Although judges rarely second guess the prosecutors' judgment on such a matter (and George noted his own reservations about doing so in making his decision), George's review of the evidence in the case caused him to feel so strongly that the prosecutors were in error that he did exactly that." MS Word recommends placing a hyphen between second and guess; it also tagged the sentence is along sentence. Consider revising it and splitting it.
Done with these edits. OCNative (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MS Word tagged the sentence "George was occasionally floated as a candidate for justice of the United States Supreme Court as a conservative acceptable to Democrats, such as when Democratic United States Senator Barbara Boxer suggested George as a potential nominee for the seat on the Court vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, describing both George and his fellow California Supreme Court justice, Kathryn Werdegar, as Republicans who "reflect the spirit of Sandra Day O'Connor's tenure — independent and nonideological."" as being a long sentence. Consider revising it, or splitting it.
Done with this edit. OCNative (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead section:
Layout:
~~There are a couple single sentence paragraphs, and the guideline states it should be minimized. Consider adding the single sentence paragraphs to other paragraphs.~~
Done with this edit. OCNative (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Words to watch:
Per WP:SAY the following use of the word noted should be reconsidered in the sentence " Although judges rarely second guess the prosecutors' judgment on such a matter (and George noted his own reservations about doing so in making his decision), George's review of the evidence in the case caused him to feel so strongly that the prosecutors were in error that he did exactly that.".
Done with these edits, bringing the statement closer to his actual quotation. OCNative (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ALLEGED the use of the word accused in the sentence "George was lauded for his extremely unusual decision to deny the motion by Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to dismiss all 10 counts of murder against Buono, although his unusual decision was speculated to be a result of his earlier decision to separate crucial counts of rape and sodomy, which in themselves would serve as evidence against the accused, from the murder charges.", should be reconsidered. Perhaps using the word defendant maybe a better option.
Done with this edit. OCNative (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SAY the use of the word deny is used in the section Early judicial career twice. In this case I understand deny is a legal court term, therefore changes to the sentences is optional, and will not affect decision to pass or fail 1B.
I appreciate your understanding on this one, as it would be legally imprecise to use another term. OCNative (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Consider, per WP:RELTIME, reconsider the use of the term less than six months later in the sentence "Voters would overturn the decision less than six months later by passing Proposition 8.".~~
Done with this edit. OCNative (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about fiction:
Embedded lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The beginning paragraph of the Supreme Court section only has a reference at the end of the paragraph. In case other users, place a fact/missing citation tag after a sentence, a reference should be provided.
Done with this edit. OCNative (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
~~The only image in the article does not have a caption, or alt text.~~
Done with this edit. OCNative (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~Please see the possible improvements that can be made to the article. The article is overall a good quality B rated article, and only a couple improvements are needed to pass this GAR.~~
Checking version 435378865. All issues appear to be resolved. Article therefore passes. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]