Talk:Abramski v. United States/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm claiming this review. I will find time within the next two days to finish the review. AHeneen (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I will (hopefully) have time to completely review this on Saturday. One thing that prevents this from being promoted is the citation style:
 * there is a bare link as a reference: http://conlawtest.sportsentertainmentattorney.com/2014/08/07/abramski-v-united-states-supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-gun-case/
 * ✅ - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the citations to the Supreme Court decision use the pages in a reporter (eg. "Abramski, 134 S. Ct. at 2275"), but the link does not use those corresponding page numbers. That makes verification difficult. You could use the pages in the Supreme Court's slip opinion (see eg. Davis v. Ayala).
 * ✅ - According to the Blue Book, when the official reporter is not available, the Supreme Court Reporter should be used. See this page. Accordingly, I simply chose to remove the link to LII, and remain with the citations to the reporter. WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I added a link to the SCOTUS slip opinion in the external links section. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * When citing a dissenting opinion, it should include "([surname of dissenting justice], J., dissenting)" (eg. "(Scalia, J., dissenting)").
 * ✅ - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That was not done. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Done now. WannaBeEditor (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what citation style this article is using. AHeneen (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are referring to. If its the SCOTUS citations, the first is a regular Blue Book citations to the Supreme Court Reporter, the rest are short form citations. The other citations in the article use the standard cite web template. WannaBeEditor (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. The standard cite web template does not follow the BlueBook style. You need to change those references to Blue Book style as well. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ WannaBeEditor (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the review. Here is what I have done:


 * 1b - I don't see which part is not covered by the lead, can you please expound? WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't cover the "Responses and analysis" or "Dissent" and it doesn't really discuss the background.AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 2a - ✅ - See comment on your comment above. WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ WannaBeEditor (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 2c - ✅ - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrase "and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt." is still missing an inline citation. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ WannaBeEditor (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 4 - ✅ - WannaBeEditor (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. AHeneen (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The only remaining issue with this article is that the lead does not adequately cover the entire article. It should include a sentence or two about both the dissent and the "Responses and analysis" sections. It also should mention just a little more about the "Factual background" of the case. You didn't respond above under my comment about the lead, so I was waiting for you to fix it...but since it's been a couple days without any edit, I just thought I should remind you in case you forgot. AHeneen (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will get to it today or tomorrow. WannaBeEditor (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you haven't edited since the above comment. I hope you are OK. It has been two weeks, so it is time to close the nomination. You can renominate it later. If you do, leave a message on my talk page and I may do the review. AHeneen (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was so busy didn't have time, but I have just finished editing the lead. Do I have to nominate it again? or can you still change the result?
 * WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)