Talk:Vance v. Terrazas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes from Reading I think this is a very well-written article, and save for some minor changes that I believe can be resolved adaquately, this article should be on its way to GA Status. Following the criteria for the process, I have made my notes below of what I believed needs change:

• The lead is the part that needs the most work. It is very hard to follow; maybe use some of your language later in the article for the lead-in as you explain it better later on.
• The 'Holding' section in the Case template needs to be simplified as well with less legalese.
• In the case template box, seperate the concurrences for Stevens and Marshall as they each write a seperate one. I believe there is a way to make it (Concurrence=) and (Concurrence2=).
  • In the actual in-article discussions of their concurrences, make sure to note the parts where they agreed with the main opinion that was written.
• Footnote 25 commentary should probably be included in the article or not at all. It certainly is relevant to the issues at hand, so seriously consider expanding that.
• Footnote 3 and 11 both have these explainations, "Note that...", this seems like editorializing/giving personal comments on the issue. The commentary on these footnotes, not the footnote itself, needs to be removed.
• Footnote 18 also seems like editorializing and probably should be removed, if not that it may be prone to controversy.

After typing this all up, to me it does seem nit-picky, but I feel these changes can be made easily and quickly. Good job on this article, you put in layman's terms a complex case about a technical piece of immigration law, and for that I applaud you. I look forward to looking over it once more in the next day or so! Cheers -- Lord Roem (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was "laid low" last night and this morning by a bout of "stomach flu", but hopefully I'm on the mend and will be able to work on the issues you raised later today. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I made changes to the article which should hopefully address all the issues you raised. Could you have another look now? Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The revisions greatly improved the clarity of the article - well done.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   6(a) left blank b/c there are no images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Great work! I will be promoting this to GA status in a second.

Lord Roem (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)