Talk:Safford Unified School District v. Redding/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 05:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Working (t · c) buidhe 05:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- In order to improve the prose and readability, I would reduce the number of direct quotations. Law articles tend to have lots of quotes but in this case I think it would benefit from some reduction. However, it is not sufficient to be an issue with the GA criteria.
- Some of the sections might benefit from being retitled. For example, the sources in "Analysis and impact" do give a subjective opinions/reception concerning the case, while the "Reception" section details some concrete impacts that the case had (e.g. the plaintiff's reaction).
- There are also significant duplicate links, which should not be there.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- I marked one place where you should cite a general/academic source for background on the Fourth Amendment. I would not rely on a court decision for that information, assuming it is in the court decision.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: #It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- File:DavidSouter.jpg source is a dead link. How do we confirm that this is the work of a US govt employee?
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Buidhe, I just want to briefly acknowledge that I have seen your review—thank you so much for your thoughtful comments! Your points are well taken. I hope to spend some time this week trying to find an alternate citation for that bit about the Fourth Amendment. I took a cursory look through the David Souter image situation, and admittedly it is a little arcane—the source traces back to this archived version of the "supremecourthistory.org" website, and it credits "Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United States, National Geographic Society, Photographer: Joseph Bailey" for the image. It appears that whoever uploaded the image to the Wikimedia Commons just assumed that it was PD-USGov. I will have to take a closer look, but incidentally I noticed the RBG image suffers from a similar uncertain copyright status. Regarding the section titles, I decided to change "Analysis and impact" to just "Analysis". Ultimately, I wanted to find a way to separate the commentary from legal academics/scholars from the commentary by journalists and the parties to the case; I'd be open to suggestions if you think it needs to be tweaked further. Thanks again, Mz7 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I have added two new citations in response to your {{cn}} tag—the first cites this "Fourth Amendment Encyclopedia" regarding Fourth Amendment incorporation and the second cites the Perry source regarding probable cause. I hope that resolves the concern you had regarding referencing. As for the David Souter image, it appears it was the official portrait for Souter that was used on the Supreme Court's website as early as 2010—combined with "Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United States" and the fact that it has remained his main infobox page for more than a decade, I'm inclined to say {{PD-USGov}} does apply here. Mz7 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- To add to this, "supremecourthistory.org" is the website of the Supreme Court Historical Society, which appears to be a reputable organization. Mz7 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, great work on the article. I am confident that it meets the GA criteria, so am going to pass it. (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Buidhe, thanks so much!
I was just about to comment that I submitted this change that removed a number of the excessively duplicated links scattered throughout the article. Mz7 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Buidhe, thanks so much!
- OK, great work on the article. I am confident that it meets the GA criteria, so am going to pass it. (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- To add to this, "supremecourthistory.org" is the website of the Supreme Court Historical Society, which appears to be a reputable organization. Mz7 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I have added two new citations in response to your {{cn}} tag—the first cites this "Fourth Amendment Encyclopedia" regarding Fourth Amendment incorporation and the second cites the Perry source regarding probable cause. I hope that resolves the concern you had regarding referencing. As for the David Souter image, it appears it was the official portrait for Souter that was used on the Supreme Court's website as early as 2010—combined with "Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United States" and the fact that it has remained his main infobox page for more than a decade, I'm inclined to say {{PD-USGov}} does apply here. Mz7 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.