Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roe v. Wade/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 12:15, 5 February 2007.

Roe v. Wade

[edit]
Messages left at Noah Peters, Abortion, U.S. Supreme Court cases. Severa 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article, in my opinion, no longer meets the criteria of a Featured Article. The 22:43, 22 January 2007 version has changed substantially from the 06:57, 8 February 2005 versison (around the time when the article was reviewed).

Many of these changes, I believe, are off-topic and deviate the focus of the article from the Roe case itself to ethical questions more relevant at Abortion debate. Some edits verge on personal commentary (POV):

  • (In "Controversy over Roe" section. Off-topic, editorialistic, unsourced, and somewhat weaselly).
    "In addition to the two groups mentioned by Justice Breyer, it appears from polls that there are also millions of Americans who take an intermediate position.'"
  • (In "Public opinion" section. Off-topic, speculatory, and editorialistic).
    "In reply, 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition. The Harris organization has misreported the results of this poll, for example by reporting that "49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade." In fact, the poll question only dealt with first trimester abortions, and it is known that the legality of later abortions is more controversial. Pro-life groups assert that the media has often misreported polls on the issue of abortion."

I believe that a review is in order. Also, yes, it January 22 where I am. -Severa (!!!) 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Severa that the two sentences she cites could have been phrased more neutrally. Therefore, I have done so. With these two improvements, the article seems to meet the criteria of a Featured Article. I agree it has changed substantially from the 06:57, 8 February 2005 version, and these changes have markedly improved the article, in my view.Ferrylodge 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is lacking in citations. It has 26 citations, but several individual paragraphs and entire sections have no references at all, thus failing 1(c). In fact, large sections, given over to quotes, do not have a citation for the quote. It also contains many one-sentence paragraphs, thus making for choppy prose. In section Jane Roe switches sides, there is a parenthetical suggestion to see another article, without parentheses, but with an external jump. I do think this article needs to be cleaned up to meet the current FA criteria. Jeffpw 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I've just beefed up the footnotes a bit; there are now 31 instead of 26. Also, I've made the text less choppy, by ensuring that each paragraph has at least two sentences. There are no more external jumps, except from the footnotes. Incidentally, there were zero footnotes in the 06:57, 8 February 2005 version (around the time when the article was reviewed). Ferrylodge 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Section headings don't conform to WP:MOS, WP:MSH, See also contains terms which should be linked in the text, footnotes aren't correctly formatted with a consistent bibliographic style, including publisher and last access date on websites. The article is undercited - as an example, see the "Justiciability" section. The article relies very heavily on direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, SandyGeorgia. I'm learning quite a bit here. As you suggested, I have fixed the headings, and I also deleted the "See also" section because all of the listed items had already been linked in the text. Additionally, I retrieved all of the stuff in the footnotes, and noted the retrieval date for retrieved articles. Also, there's now a cite in the Justiciability section. I have shortened several of the quotes, and reduced the number of blockquotes. And, I followed your suggestion to insert the name of the publisher into the book citations in the footnotes.Ferrylodge 06:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know there is an involved editor willing to correct the deficiencies, Ferrylodge. The references still need some work in terms of a consistent bibliographic style (particularly the websources, which should also include publisher). Knowing that someone is working on the article, we can go through and give you a list of items that need addressing - some of us don't put the time into going through an article in greater detail until we know someone is willing to work on it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fire away. I don't know exactly what it means for an article to be "featured", but I figured it couldn't hurt to keep this article in featured status. Please show some mercy, and don't have me do more than necessary to keep it featured.  :-) Ferrylodge 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my list (just returning from travel - still catching up). I'll leave a note to other reveiwers to have a look as well. In the meantime, you might want to browse WP:WIAFA, and some of the candidates at WP:FAC. You might also move ahead on checking for citations: be wary of counting citations or broad statements about the number of citations per paragraph or section - look for specific facts that require citation. That may be zero, one or dozens per paragraph - direct quotes and anything controversial or likely to be challenged should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes are still not correctly formatted, and all websources don't have a last access date. For editors not familiar with a specific citation style, it can be helpful to use the cite templates to achieve a consistent and complete formatting style. References should be alphabetical - not clear on primary vs. secondary there. There are weasle words (Anthony M. Kennedy, was seen as a potential anti-Roe vote - seen by whom? Needs a cite), and the article still needs to be thoroughly cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to try to address all of those concerns within the next few days. However, no time today. What is the time frame for this evaluation?Ferrylodge 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The typical time under review is two weeks, and then another two weeks in the FARC period (even if the article moves to FARC, when work is ongoing, reviewers typically hold off on Keep or Remove opinions). If work is ongoing and progress is evident, we usually extend review time, so just keep us updated on your progress, give us feedback, and let us know if you need more time or want us to have another look at your progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep you posted.Ferrylodge 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added a bunch more footnotes, more retrieval dates in the footnotes, alphabetized references (getting rid of the division between "primary" vs. "secondary"), and getting rid of weasel words. Plus some clarification here and there. Regarding format of footnotes, I've tried to make it a consistent format. Guidelines say to follow the system used for an article's existing citations, so that's what I tried to do. Please feel free to comment some more, but keep in mind that I'm not aiming for perfection here, though I wish I had the time to do so.Ferrylodge 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Severa, I would have no problem at all if we delete the images of Weddington and McCorvey. The images of Blackmun and White should stay, though, because they are public domain. Would you like to wipe out Weddington and McCorvey, or shall I?Ferrylodge 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went ahead and deleted the copyrighted images of McCorvey and Weddington, just to be safe. The other two photos are public domain.Ferrylodge 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. A bunch of new cites are now in the Controversy section, and elsewhere.Ferrylodge 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, here's a new problem. WP:WIAFA says articles should conform to all relevant Project standards. I noticed two external jumps in the lead, using a standardized template - I went over to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases to see if they are encouraging external jumps in the text, prepared to disagree (it's a pet peeve). In fact, the Project guidelines do (correctly) specify that external jumps to the case law belong in External links. The other problem is that, while I was there, I noticed that the article layout doesn't agree with their standard. Can you have a look at that, and also remove the external jumps per their guidelines? You already have the cases correctly referenced, so the external jumps aren't needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just eliminated the external jumps. Regarding the overall layout, please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases says that certain layouts are "suggested". Roe is an unusual case with unusual ramifications, so I think it's appropriate to be a bit unique here, and depart somewhat from the suggestions. In fact, down at the bottom of the guidelines, three examples of particularly well-written case articles are given, and this article is one of those three listed examples. In a parenthetical, it is stated that: "though none follow a suggested outline particularly well, all are featured articles."[1] Whether that is a criticism or just a statement of fact, I don't know. Anyway, if we can continue with the present format, I'd appreciate it, because it does seem to cover all the bases in a way that meshes with the actual facts involving this particular case.Ferrylodge 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, Ok, thanks for investigating - sounds good. Another question - they ask that the case law be included in External links, but normally something that is already given in refs need not also be included in External links - not sure how to resolve that - maybe you'd be interested in following up with them? Since it's ambiguous, I'm not going to object on this issue, but we might get it cleared up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I investigated your question a little bit. According to case citation guidelines, a citation to the United States Reports looks like this:
So, when you read a Wikipedia article about a case, such as Arizona v. Evans, you'll often find such citations right in the middle of the text, including the external link. However, Wikipedia editors have noted the following: "Court citations are not always recognized by laypeople as providing source information (though this is obviated by the usual practice of external links to the full text)." So, many case article have not only a cite and external link in the text, but also list one or more cases in the external links. The Wikipedia guidelines about case citations say: "If you are looking for the actual text of an opinion, it is usually linked in the external links at the bottom of the article on that case."
The way all of this has been handled in the Roe article is to mention a case in the text with an internal link and/or a footnote that includes an external link. Also, the main case (i.e. Roe v. Wade) is listed in the external links. I am satisfied with this approach; I think the article flows better with the case cites (e.g. 143 U.S. 246) in the footnotes rather than cluttering up the text. And, for people who have come to expect a link to the full text in the "external links", the Roe article provides that too. I'd be glad to change any of this, but the way it is now seems okay too.Ferrylodge 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for investigating: if those are the guidelines, it seems fine. My main concern is that we not have external jumps in the text. I left a note for the nominator (Severa) to check back in with any other concerns here, but his/her talk page indicates s/he has the flu. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm now through making edits for the time being, unless you suggest more.Ferrylodge 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Severa declined (on my talkpage) to review the FAR. In checking the references, I saw a personal AOL homepage website which should be replaced with a reliable source:
The district court case is available at answers.com, so I've linked to that instead. FWIW, I've tried to be objective and not insert any POV. (It would have been a much more colorful article if my POV were allowed.)Ferrylodge 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful with answers.com - it contains Wiki mirrors - not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left some additional invites to try and stir up some interest, for SlimVirgin, Oskar Sigvardsson, and Sfahey who were involved in the initial review, and also Postdlf and Eastlaw who have edited many case articles including this one. Do you have conserns that are still outstanding, SandyGeorgia? Ferrylodge 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't thoroughly read the article to make sure everything that needs to be referenced is referenced - I'd rather wait until people familiar with the law and the issues have been through. So far, I've focused on making sure your references are correctly formatted, reliable sources, and the article follows MOS guidelines. I really don't look forward to reading an abortion article, so I've been putting it off :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understandable.Ferrylodge 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started to read the article, and didn't get past the first few paragraphs. The prose is a wreck, and I found unreferenced info right out of the starting gate. Perhaps people who follow the case aren't aware that people who didn't/don't have never heard that Roe was allegedly raped. The article is going to need a sustained effort at further referencing, as well as a copy edit. If someone is going to do all that, we'll have to add fact tags. If someone is going to take it on, pls keep the FAR posted; then I'll give further examples, but I seem to be the only editor reviewing this article. I also found wikilinking problems in the lead - why was state linked, and federal not? Wikilinking will need attention. I also found weasly, "opinion" statements which call for citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you're willing to keep pointing out what needs work, I'm willing to fix it. I've already fixed what you've pointed out so far. I'm in process of adding some more footnotes. I guess this is what happens when a bunch of people collaborate on an article.Ferrylodge 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll keep trudging through it - glad you're working on it - sorry for sounding irritated, but it's always frustrating when I'm the only reviewer working on a given article. Would sure appreciate more eyes on these FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another look:

  • Ref 3 appears to be a google cache - I believe those are not enduring? Needs a real source, and to be correctly formatted.
  • Still have problems with Answers.com as a source - it's a mirror, not reliable.
  • Please wikilink full dates in refs.
  • Ref 9 - e.g. see Ronald Reagan - isn't correctly formatted. See WP:CITE for examples, or use cite templates.
  • The formatting on the refs is bouncing all over the place - using cite templates might help impose some order. Last name first is helpful.
  • Prose problems still evident - examples:
  • Why are these two clauses joined with an "and": Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history, and its lesser-known companion case was decided at the same time in 1973: Doe v. Bolton.
  • Whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating ... surely that can be said in a much more straightforward way ?? The decision prompted national debate that continues to this day over whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating a pregnancy
  • The lead is sounding weasly: Some critics of Roe also believe ...
  • Are law cases supposed to be italicized per WP:MOS - I'm not sure, pls check.
  • History of case is written in legalese - and - the people themselves arrived? Why do we care? Both "Jane Roe" and defendant Wade arrived at the Supreme Court on appeal, where the case was argued by Weddington and Texas Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd on December 13, 1971.
  • Skipping down a few sections to see how citationn is coming along:
  • (This seems to introduce some POV, and is incorrectly punctuated) - A plurality of Reagan-Bush appointees, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, reaffirmed that the Constitution protects a right of abortion.
  • (The opinions were joined by people? What does "as well as by each other mean?) Rehnquist and Scalia filed dissenting opinions which were joined by Justices White and Thomas, as well as by each other.
  • Decipher and cite this:
  • During the 1990s, attempts were made at the state level to ban certain late-term abortions, which were struck down, again by a 5-4 vote, in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), with Justice Kennedy, co-author of the Casey decision, among the dissenters. Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote about those second trimester abortions that the states were not seeking to prohibit, in the Stenberg case: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off." This statement raises questions about Justice Kennedy's continued support for Casey and Roe.
  • Besides the prose and citation problems, "Here is what" is not formal encyclopedic tone. "Raises questions" is uncited, sounds like original research or opinion.

Many, many problems here - without serious attention to prose, citing, and references, this is on the express train to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get on it soon. I've made so many fix-ups to this article unilaterally that I've been hesitant to do more, for fear of seeming like a dictator. However, your comments SandyGeorgia really help justify more fixups. Good work. (Though I admit that one or two of the problems you cite may have been caused by my own edits, alas.) Ferrylodge 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC.)
Sorry 'bout that; I often intentionally do not look at the edit history so my comments will be general and hopefully not aimed at any one person :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status Report

[edit]

Okay, thanks again for the additional comments. I feel much better making so many fix-ups with someone else agreeing about them.

In Ref 3, I have replaced the google cache with a real source (pdf). I have eliminated the Answers.com source, and replaced it with a Wikimedia source. I have wikilinked the full dates in refs, and put last name first in the refs.

Wiki is not a reliable source - if something is sourced there, use the soruce directly in this article. 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed prose problems such as breaking this into two sentences: "Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history, and its lesser-known companion case was decided at the same time in 1973: Doe v. Bolton." Also fixed the awkward phrase "Whether a state can choose to deem the act of terminating." Also eliminated weaselly sounding "Some critics of Roe also believe..."

Yes, all cases must be italicized per WP:MOS.

Thanks for letting me know that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the "History of case" section to tone down the legalese (I'm not the one who wrote it in the first place!).

In the section on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I've corrected punctuation and tried to eliminate any POV-sounding stuff. Yes, lawyers say that one judge "joined" another's opinion, but I've changed it to "signed" which non-lawyers might understand better. Also fixed awkward phrasing about who signed what.

In the section on Stenberg, I've hopefully deciphered it. Added quote and cite from Justice Ginsburg. Eliminated unencyclopedic tone, and appearance of original research/opinion.

I'm willing to work on this some more, with further guidance. I don't want to be editing this so heavily all by myself, without guidance. What does the "C" in "FARC" stand for, by the way? UPDATE: Never mind, I see it stands for "candidates".Ferrylodge 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concern you have - currently, only you and I are reviewing the article - not good. I am pretty frustrated that no one else is helping out, as this topic is not in my area of interest, and not something I'm particularly familiar with. FAR = Featured article review; FARC = Featured article removal candidate. Articles move from review to removal candidates if improvements aren't made. We need more reviewers, particularly when we have an editor willing to do the work and looking for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently four possible sources for the Roe v. Wade District Court case (Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970)). Are any of the following four possible sources acceptable, or should I just omit a link entirely, and cite without a link?
1) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Roe.pdf
2) http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade-3#Roe_vol1_315-323
3) http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/roedist.htm
4) http://www.andrewhyman.com/roe.html
Ferrylodge 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to provide an online source for a legal document which should be available somewhere somehow in a library. Cite the document as one would cite a hardprint, legal document, and then provide (at the end of the cite) a courtesy link to wikimedia. How does a person locate this document in a library, for example? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Hopefully this cite is okay now. A person would use the case cite to find the case in a library. In any law library, there's a set of books titled "Federal Supplement", and that's what the case cite refers to ("F. Supp."). The footnote now says:
Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970), http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Roe.pdf (courtesy link). Retrieved 2007-02-01.
Ferrylodge 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not my area, but I believe that works - what is important is that the person who cited the article verified the *actual* text, rather than relying on a non-reliable source (courtesy link). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
  • Comment. After feeling suitably chastised by Sandy, I had a look over the article and made minor changes (mostly to style/grammar, feel free to revert if I've made it worse). A few of the things I wasn't sure about (I have no expertise on this topic):
  • Not many state laws had been overturned by the Griswold case in 1965, whereas abortion was widely proscribed by state laws in the early 1970s. - I'm not following this. Had anything changed between 1965 and early 1970s? If not, the "whereas" is very confusing.
  • Valid state interests, however, must be weighed against the constitutionally protected rights of individuals in order to determine whether a law is a constitutional exercise of power - this feels a bit too assertive to me; it's written as a fact, and so has a different tone to the surrounding text. Could it be changed to something like "The court weight valid state..."?
  • The Court believed itself competent only to resolve the question of when a right to abortion begins. - is "competent" the right word to use? It may well be, I just feel it isn't right in line with the quotation.
  • Also, many Americans believe that, although some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far. - I think this needs a cite to a survey of some sort. Although a relevant Wikipedia article is linked, it can't count as a reference, and this is a statement that could be challenged.

From reading the first half, it seems that this article is in pretty good shape, as good as a lot of the articles that come to FAC and pass. The prose is a little heavy-going, but that seems inevitable in a legal article. This can probably be saved. Trebor 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the good comments, Trebor. I have just edited the article to address almost all of the points you raise, and I hope those edits will be satisfactory. I have not yet had a chance to address your last comment (regarding what "many Americans believe"), but will try to do so later today. My plan is to copy some of the footnotes from the relevant linked Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the controversy section, it could do with being trimmed and focused a bit. Certain sentences and paragraphs are pretty unrelated to Roe, and just give background on the pro-life debate. It's not bad, just a little rambling in places. Also:

  • The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the Court's decision. The "viability" criterion, which Justice Blackmun acknowledged was arbitrary, is still in effect, although the point of viability has receded toward conception as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive. - I think the first sentence needs to be cited, and perhaps the second. Trebor 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done some more edits, footnoting the statement about what "many Americans believe", also footnoting that opponents say Roe was legislative, and also footnoting that viability has receded since 1973. And, I've trimmed and focussed the Controversy section a bit, so that it focuses more on Roe than on the general abortion issue. More comments are welcome, if you like. Certainly, this review has improved the article considerably, compared to its condition when the review began. Thanks Trebor and Sandy.Ferrylodge 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, I'm through making edits for the time being, unless you suggest more.Ferrylodge 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another example of prose and referencing problems, looking at the final section, which is one paragraph:

In 2003, Congress passed a Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is currently in litigation. The Supreme Court heard arguments in November 2006 on the issue, and a decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is expected in 2007. Despite the Court's previous ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart that banning partial birth abortion is unconstitutional because such a ban would not allow for the health of the mother, the Court is again deciding whether to allow this ban because Congress researched the issue and passed a law reflecting its conclusion that this type of abortion is never necessary for the health of the mother. While the Court can trump Congressional laws if they are unconstitutional, the Court typically defers to Congress's findings of fact. Whether the Court decides for itself if Congress was clearly wrong, defers to the judgement call of Congress if Congress was not clearly wrong but the issue is reasonably disputable, or simply decides to follow Congress is yet to be seen. It is also possible that the Court will take this opportunity to revisit its holding in Roe. The case may illuminate how the newly appointed Justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, reason about this and similar issues.
  • "currently" needs definition, or it will become outdated - this can be solved by joing the first and second sentences with a semi-colon. "On the issue"? Is there a case name? If the case name is Gonzalez v. Carhart, then re-write the entire thing to say so. The next sentence, beginning with "despite" is a snake - see Tony1a examples above. "Because Congress researched the issue and passed a law reflecting its conclusion that this type of abortion ... " SHEESH - before I get halfway through, I'm lost, and I've never been told what the law is or does. ... because Congress passed (name the law or whatever), allowing partial birth abortion. Why is the sentence beginning with "While" here? I don't see what it's adding to the article. The sentence beginning with Whether is not encyclopedic - it's speculation, not needed. Ditto for "IT is also possible". Ditt ofr "The case may ... " This is an encyclopedia, not a pro- or anti-anything article. Just the facts. This section is almost completely redundant. Someone still needs to take a major red pen to this article. IF it can be argued that any of this content stays, then it all needs to be referenced, or else it's original research and opinion. The redundancy throughout the article is a killer - I suggest printing out the article, looking at it on paper, and thinking about encyclopedic, factual content, succintly stated, opinions referenced and attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that last paragraph could use a major rewrite, and I'm glad you agree. I'll get on it soon. By the way, I had nothing to do with writing it or revising it (except that I wrote the sentence "It is also possible that the Court will take this opportunity to revisit its holding in Roe" which I admit does sound a bit speculative although the fact is that the case does present that option). Anyway, I'll take a crack at revising the final paragraph. I already did a comprehensive prose edit of the Controversy section, but have not done so for the whole article. I am hesitant to try overhauling the whole article, because I really haven't gotten a sense whether you think the changes I've made thus far during this review have been okay as far as they went. If not, then someone else should comprehensively edit "throughout the article." I feel most comfortable having you point out specific sections and specific problems. Anyway, I'll get started on the last section this evening.Ferrylodge 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not your writing, and I hate editing this article :-) I've gone now through the bottom half of the article; here are my changes. I'm finding a lack of attention to wikilinking, unattributed opinion, some subtle POV, and much redundancy - these edits should give you an example of what to look for throughout. Keep up the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy, I appreciate that you dove into this article even though it's not exactly an article about the Sound of Music. I'll dive back in as well.Ferrylodge 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a series of statements that simply must be rewritten:

  • Others have said that, ...
  • Also, many Americans believe that, ...
  • Many conservatives and other supporters of federalism ...
  • Some liberals have felt ...
  • several states enacted or attempted ...
  • Some academics ...
  • Many Americans vigorously support ...

Some of these statements are somewhat cited, but the statements are still weasly - rewording to avoid the vagueness will help.

  • Fueled by the intensity of feelings in both its supporters and critics, the controversy over Roe shows no sign of abating. Details about how millions of Americans view this issue can be found in polling data about abortion.
    • "No signs of abating"? This sort of commentary isn't an encyclopedic restating of the case - it's advocacy - reword it to just the facts. "Details about ..." is unencyclopedic prose - find a more seamless way to work the poll dat into the article text.

Keep going! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about citation needs here - I don't want to slap on a bunch of cite tags when presumably a lot of the uncited direct quotes come from the opinions written by the Justices - but how do I know that? Do I have to read each case? <grrrr ... > Just not sure if more cites are needed on direct quotes, or if it's clear to others they come from the case, and which case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes two of us who are confused.  :) If this were a law review article, then we would be footnoting every reference to a case, and describing the relevant page number of the case in each respective footnote (or including footnotes that say "Id."). However, I don't think that's as necessary here.Ferrylodge 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm through for the day. I think all of Sandy's specific points have now been addressed. I should be able to get a job at Britannica after this.  :-) Ferrylodge 07:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are all of my most recent edits, subsequent to Sandy's most recent edits. I am through editing, unless and until there are more comments or guidance here at the review page. Are we getting close to where we need to go?Ferrylodge 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment particularly on comprehensiveness or balance, which is why an editor more knowledgeable in legal matters would be useful. But I don't think we're miles off. Few more comments:

  • The accessdates are inconsistent: sometimes "retrieved" is capitalised, and sometimes they aren't there at all.
  • Most prominent among pro-choice groups is the National Abortion Rights Action League. Most prominent among pro-life groups is the National Right to Life Committee. - combine the sentences and save some words, it seems odd to phrase successive sentences in almost identical ways (I had to double read it to check they weren't the same).
  • Is there any expansion on public opinion? I'd be particularly interested in reactions immediately after the decision, and variation between then and now.

Keep up the good work :) Trebor 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the comments, Trebor. I have now addressed those three points. Regarding public opinion, I have expanded that section, and inserted a new footnote that links to a graph showing the changing support for Roe since 1973.Ferrylodge 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding comprehensiveness and balance, I'm an attorney knowledgeable in legal matters. However, I have a bias against Roe.
I've tried to be completely neutral in this article. My personal opinion is laid out in an op/ed I wrote a few years ago (here). Regarding comprehensiveness, the present article does not discuss what a post-Roe legal regime might be like, but that would involve speculation, not to mention an almost limitless range of possibilities (including those mentioned in my op/ed).
I guess you'll have to decide whether we need an editor knowledgeable in legal matters, but who perhaps has a different personal viewpoint than mine. Anyway, I think the article is in good shape (but then again, I naively thought so up at the top of this page!).Ferrylodge 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I'm reassured by that (and would be worried if you were an attorney not knowledgeable in legal matters ;) ). Don't have time to check the changes now but will have a look later. Trebor 09:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if more attorneys were knowledgeable in legal matters, there wouldn't be any Roe v. Wade decision.  :) Anyway, I just noticed that we're at 47 footnotes now. At the beginning of the year, there were only seven (7). Not that a lot of footnotes always make an article better, of course, but they certainly do make an article look more intimidating.  :) Ferrylodge 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the Public Opinion section still needs work. That graph would be nice to include in the article, but I'm not sure about copyrights. I'd prefer the section to be more chronological and descriptive (of course, if sources allow). Something like, "Straight after the poll people felt like this, over the years this has changed, a recent poll said this". Hope you understand what I mean. Trebor 15:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that's the same section I just happened to check - it is replete with weasle words, original research and unsourced opinion. "and it is known that ..." " the results of the poll are revealing, because the question has been asked consistently ever since Roe was decided. Judging by the poll results, ..." The article still has an advocacy rather than encyclopedic tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at another random section:

  • Rendundancies stil: Many l Liberal legal scholars have ...
  • refs in the wrong place: In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[20] Professor ... (put the ref here at the end of the direct quotes)
  • (snake for chopping): Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Kinsley, have also criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion law which was a movement they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. (also, reference for what "they contend"?)
  • Ref in wrong place, are editorials the best source for this section? Washington Post editorial writer Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply",[26] and his colleague Richard Cohen [27] has expressed a similar view.
  • redundant prose: Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe’s author like a grandfather" has stated as follows: (said):

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address these additional points. But, I'm a little hazy about what Trebor is referring to, about "copyrights" (which is kind of ironic since I'm an intellectual property attorney (patents, trademarks, and copyrights)). What's the copyright problem with the public opinion section? UPDATE: Oh, never mind, I get it. You're talking about the Harris poll graph. I should have figured that out. Ferrylodge 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next break

[edit]

I keep coming back, hoping we can consider this one done; every time I look at a sample section, there are still basic prose problems and easy to spot redundancies like these. Very controversial = controversial. about various aspects of this landmark ruling = about this landmark ruling. I'm going to list this article at WP:LoCE to see if we can convince a copyeditor to take a red pen to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a table in the public opinion section. As for redundancy, I'm a lawyer after all.  :) But I have been trying to be encyclopedic (and unweaselly!). Ferrylodge 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left some inline comments - in the article, so a search on <! to find inlines that need to be addressed. I have no idea what the numbers in that table are - plus and minus relative to what? We'll get you yet to write like an encyclopedia instead of a lawyer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor asked for a table. But there are problems. First, there's the copyright issue, because we can't just duplicate the graph at the Harris poll website. Second, I wouldn't even want to duplicate that graph, because the poll question was all messed up. Third, Harris seems to the the only pollster that is showing poll results ever since Roe was written in 1973.
In the table I made, consider the year 1976. It says +7% support. This is because the Harris Poll graph shows that support for Roe climbed from 52% to 59% between 1973 and 1976. Also, the table show -14% opposition in 1976. This is because the Harris poll graph shows that opposition to Roe fell from 42% to 28% between 1973 and 1976.Ferrylodge 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I want a table? Anyway, mine were just ideas for the section. I thought it would be nice to include something about the immediate public response, not just the current opinion. It doesn't have to track every year. Trebor 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wanted the Harris graph, but a table's the next best thing, no? Anyway, I've just edited the table so maybe it's clearer now. What do you think?Ferrylodge 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's good now. Trebor 23:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dug in and did some editing myself, Trebor and FerryLodge have made great progress, this article is in much better shape than when featured, it's referenced, the prose is tuned up, I can't detect any more POV, close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note on closing - the nominator left Wikipedia for health reasons.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy and Trebor.  :)Ferrylodge 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. After brilliant work from Sandy and Ferrylodge, this has got to the point where I can't see how to improve it. Unless someone new finds some major problems, close without FARC. Trebor 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Roe_v._Wade/archive1&oldid=1078812125"