Jump to content

Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Connolly15 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The article is well written in a clear and concise manner. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Please see discussion - a few minor fixes are required. Corrected. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References all look of a high quality. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) See discussion section, the citations need to be reformatted. No problems. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No OR problems. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Please see the discussion section for comments. Can these major aspects be included (precedent set, comment in the news media, further jurisprudence on the precedent? Content added. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Article is well focused and does not stray or go into too much detail. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Subsequent developments section is now NPOV as support and criticism mentioned. Prose is neutral. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No problems. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) One image needs to be looked at. No problems. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) No problems. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Article meets the Good Article criteria.

Discussion

[edit]

General Comments

  • I wonder if the article could be further expanded - has the case been followed or distinguished in any further rulings of the Supreme Court? I note that this was decided in 2004. You could add a section on this in "Subsequent Developments" if applicable. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 00:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty locating main stream press coverage. I did find a New York Times article, but it essentially is just a summary of the holding. I will do some additional searching here. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 00:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After further searching, I still cannot find any coverage worth including. This is the Google search I used, which should find anything available in the online archives of mainstream news publications. The CNN article is just announcing that the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, the New York Times article is just a summary of the holding, and the USA Today article is just incidental coverage. The rest of the search results are from court records or scholarly publications. As such, I've decided to remove the mention of coverage in the media with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Subsequent Developments" the first sentence shouldn't be there if the article is going to include the J.D.B. v North Carolina case as a sub-section in this section, as it is neither a scholarly publication or the press. Perhaps create a subsection on "Legal reception" and move the subsection there and include any more rulings there have been referring to the case? DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split into separate sections with this edit. Added rulings referring to the case with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 00:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The lead needs to summarize the whole article. None of the "Subsequent Developments" section is included. Try to work this into the lead in general terms, especially if the case has been followed or distinguished in subsequent rulings. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lede would benefit from a concluding sentence that explains the impact of the ruling (especially for readers who are not going to go on and read until the end of the article). Concluding with: "In a split decision, the Supreme Court declined to overturn the state court's conclusion because it was not objectively incorrect," doesn't give a good explanation of what the precedent set is. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If lead is expanded further it might be helpful to break it into two appropriate paragraphs. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to resolve all 3 lead issues with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

  • *I see the previous reviewer suggested that the article adopt this format and pointed to the article Augmentative and alternative communication as an example. I like this format a lot, but the citations need to make it clear which Reference is being referred to. As in the Augmentative and alternative communication it provides the author and page number, and links to the full biographical reference. As this article is shorter, when I click on the page number it just brings me to the reference section (so I can't tell what source is being referred to (without seeing the coding of course)). It would be better if each footnote included a "source short form" and page number. For example, "Yarborough v Alvarado (Opinion), p. 7" and continue linking to the relevant source in the list of references as is done now.  DoneConnolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved with this edit -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't provide full quotations in the footnotes unless it is particularly necessary for understanding.  DoneConnolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved with this edit -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

  • I see you have made a lot of progress from the first review in wiki-linking concepts that are unfamiliar to the reader - I think a few more could still be linked (e.g. respondent, precedent). You should try to read the article from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with U.S. or even common law. Terminology such as "respondent" changes in different legal systems, and not all even rely on precedent - so a reader may not understand what these mean. As I said though you've made a lot of progress in this area.  DoneConnolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to resolve this through this edit. I linked respondent, precedent, charged, majority opinion, concurrence, and dissenting opinion. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved with this edit. I opted to use quotations here because the cited option is all one page (i.e., I can't give page numbers). -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Resolved with this edit. I've changed the image to one that is in the public domain. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues

Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red herring was a phrase used by Justice Breyer, but I decided the article would be clearer without the term. Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned from the first review, the "See Also" section should not link to what is already linked in the article - likely the article doesn't need a See Also section at this point. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result

  • As these issues are relatively minor, I will put the review on hold for 7 days to allow for further amendments.
With my most recent edits, I've attempted to address all issues brought up above. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the review, the feedback was really useful! Please let me know if there are any other suggestions you have. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yarborough_v._Alvarado/GA2&oldid=1136222844"