Talk:United States v. Jones (2012)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Sailing to Byzantium

This is a very strong candidate. I found a few issues, listed below.

• There is an in-text external link at " Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)". Is that standard? I would expect external links to be in the end sections, and "United States v. Karo" is mentioned above without such a link.

  I haven't seen this in similar articles that have GA status, so I'm removing the external link. I think it's unnecessary, anyway. If the readers want to know more on the case, they could click on the link to the WP article. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• The "Reception" section gives a single sentence by the defense attorney regarding the importance of the case, followed by a paragraph about a poll taken before the decision, and commentary about the poll. Are there other notable opinions that should go in the "Reception" section? A quick Google search reveals statements about the case's importance from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Federation of American Scientists, the Michigan Law Review, the EFF, the ACLU, etc.

  I added some extra information to the "Reception" section. Let me know if there are other points you would like me to mention. Edge3 (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  That's an excellent addition. This issue has now been resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• The "See Also" section lists subsequent case law that relied on Jones for precedent: United States v. Graham and Florida v. Jardines, plus the proposed Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act. Should those be mentioned in the text, perhaps in the "Subsequent developments" section?

• The "See Also" section also mentions the Kyllo and Oliver cases. Why these, in particular? Were they referenced in the justices' opinions? If not, what are the criteria by which we can tell which Fourth-Amendment cases should be included in the See Also section and which should not? (My own preference is to omit "See Also" sections except in those uncommon situations where an article is unquestionably relevant, but clearly should not be linked in the article body.)

  I agree that the "See Also" section should be reserved for articles that are clearly relevant but not mentioned in the article itself. For Supreme Court cases in particular, I'm wary of turning the "See Also" section into a list of related cases, since the impact of a Supreme Court decision could affect so many subsequent cases. For this reason, I removed the "See Also" section, but was reverted by DrFleischman.

  Interpreting WP:SEEALSO is a matter of editorial judgment, so it's not clear what to include or exclude. I personally don't think the Kyllo and Oliver cases should be in the "See Also" section, since they don't have a readily apparent connection to Jones. If those cases were cited in the Jones opinion, then they should be mentioned in the article body. Edge3 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kyllo and Jones are frequently cited together as the two leading technology/privacy cases, so I think Kyllo should stay. Oliver is certainly a notable case but I don't understand its connection to Jones, so I think it should go. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• When the "Notes" refer to pages of "United States v. Jones (Oral Argument Transcript)", the link takes them to the main reference under "References". This way the PDF is only linked once. But although the "Opinions" PDF is also linked in the "References" section, each note that refers to it links individually to the PDF (and there are many such notes). It seems to me that it would be better if these were done consistently, without the need for multiple links in the article to the same external PDF.

  I switched all of the links to the citation in the "Notes" section. Edge3 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting this review on hold while these are addressed. I look forward to your replies. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The nominator, Sailing to Byzantium, is inactive. As per a prior agreement with Quadell, I am willing to take over this nomination and make the requested changes. Of course, I would be happy to yield to Sailing to Byzantium if he/she returns. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Edge3. I'll leave this nomination open for another week, to give you a chance to make the necessary modifications. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The current situation

Improvements have been made to this already-strong article, but I have a few concerns remaining. I do wish a consistent standard for inclusion were implemented with regard to the "See also" list, but I concede that it's not currently an impediment to GA status. The removal of material from the "Reception" section, on the other hand, has left that section a little skimpy. For a reputed "landmark ruling", I'd feel more comfortable if a couple more sentences were added on notable reactions, whether related to the removed survey or not. (And I still think a couple of the "See also" entries would be better as mentions in a section like this.) Besides that issue, I think the article is ready. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: The "Reception" section still feels like it could include more. Would any of these sources be appropriate to use? Volokh Conspiracy, EFF, Michigan Law Review, or these many summaries and reactions at Scotusblog? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but could you please re-post on the article talk page to widen the discussion to the larger community? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

With the most recent additions, I am satisfied that this article meets all the criteria for GA status. That's not to say that it can't be improved; further information in the "Reception" section would be welcome. But it is reasonably complete now, and I'm going to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)