Talk:United States v. Alvarez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. Include some of the background of the case, a quick line on the opinions, and some of the impact.

Background

Where was the case introduced? What decision did that court take before this moved to the Ninth Circuit Court?
Where was Alvarez from? Where is the Three Valleys Municipal Water District Board?
When did the court grant Certotiari?

Supreme Court's decision

What was the court's vote?
Was Breyer's opinion a concurring opinion or some other form?

Subsequent developments

Having followed this story on my own, I know there is a great deal of opinion and analysis by reliable sources. Look for opinions from publications like Stars and Stripes among others, as well as interviews from legal experts and opinions from military experts. They'll need to be included.
There has also been a substantial amount of press coverage about subsequent attempts to introduce similar legislation with more refined wording recently. I added a link to this article about valor.defense.gov, which was created in response to the move being struck down.

General

The article needs some serious copy editing. I'd suggest bringing a copy editor in to review it.
I have added several citation needed tags in places where sourcing is essential. I know there is a lot of press coverage surrounding this event -- the sources do exist.
Typically on Supreme Court decision articles there is some trouble finding images, and so the answer is to include images of the justices who wrote the majority and dissenting opinions. You'll need to do this here to satisfy the illustration requirement.
Dab link tool shows no problems. However, duplicate link tool returns one result: Anthony Kennedy
One of the references is returning a 404 error and needs to be fixed or replaced.

I'll be honest: This article needs a huge amount of work to get to GA standard. I've noted some of the major problems with content, sourcing and style and await your response. —Ed!^(talk) 00:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you as well. I saw the giant backlog in the GAN#Law section and figured I could work on this over the course of the next few days. Could we agree on a short delay before further review? I think I can bring this up considerably by Wednesday/Thursday. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Ping me when you've made some of the improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 01:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is coming along nicely. I'm seeing a lot more sourcing and a more concise article. There is still drastic need for improvement in the "subsequent developments" section, but you seem to be on the right track. —Ed!^(talk) 13:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes. There are just two more things I think are essential for passing the review. First and foremost, you need to discuss the new legislation that has appeared in the time since this act was shot down. I believe John McCain has spearheaded an effort to narrow the language per the court's instruction. Second, you should expand the lead to update it with the new information and summarize the whole article. Here are some links to the McCain legislation: [1] [2] —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Passing the article for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]