Talk:False statements of fact/GA1

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

Reviewer: RJaguar3 (talk · contribs) 06:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the next few days. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a very interesting and informative article on a subject that readers might be surprised would have broad coverage in legal treatises.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1a. In the section "basic substantive rule," it is unclear why the words "manner" and "context" are in single quotes.  This does not appear to  be grammatically correct.  "Punitive damages are sometimes available against an individual who made a public false statement of fact" in section 1.3 should be written in the present tense: "who makes a public false statement of fact."  Otherwise, the article reads well.  For a short article, the lead is of appropriate length (1 to 2 paragraphs).  I would suggest making a wikilink to Freedom of speech in the United States where "free speech" is mentioned in the first sentence.  Layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation are fine.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The primary secondary source used in the article is Volokh 2008. I trust that there are other treatises available which could supplement the article (and may help with NPOV).  Regardless, the sources are fine for 2a.  Criterion 2b is not satisfied because the controversial statement "This specific standard of mens rea is specifically to be used in cases where such speech comments on a matter of public concern" is cited to a webpage at a .edu site, which doesn't appear to have the claim (if it is there, please help provide a specific sentence supporting the claim).  Also, the statement about Snyder v. Phelps is unclear, because from my understanding, the Court said that the statements were protected by the First Amendment, regardless of their falsity; thus, determining whether they were in fact false (as opposed to opinion) was not really reached, from what I understand.  Further, in the lead, the statement "In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Court strongly suggested that even "deliberate lies" could not be punished if made against the government" seems to be a counterintuitive/controversial statement and must therefore have an inline citation (to something other than the opinion itself, as the fact that the decision strongly suggested that is not obvious from a non-expert reading of the opinion).  Otherwise, the use of citations for controversial statements and quotes is fine.  For criterion 2c, I understand that legal opinions are often a very good source; nonetheless, they are primary sources, which should be used cautiously to avoid original research.  This article does include Volokh as the principal secondary source, which is good, but I would like to see more secondary sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is short, but it covers the major issues of the topic well without devolving into ponderous, irrelevant details.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article looks neutral; however, without additional sources, it is unclear whether this article fairly represents all significant viewpoints about this aspect of law.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * File:Falwellhustler.jpg, the only image in this article, has no non-free use rationale for this article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Putting on hold for 1 week to let you address the issues. The article will be reassessed on January 18. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  02:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting on hold for 1 week to let you address the issues. The article will be reassessed on January 18. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  02:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment; thanks for reviewing! I will work on this article over the week and through the weekend. Just note I will be out on Saturday and Sunday, so I may not be able to add in new secondary sources until a tad later. I appreciate your suggestions and I'll work to improve the sourcing among other things. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was off-line this weekend. I will do my best to update the article before the blackout. I'm now back to business! Lord Roem (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of Wikipedia's blackout this week and the contributor's personal commitments, I will extend the on hold period to January 25. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  06:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to fail this nomination because there has been no work on it in two weeks and there are still issues (such as criterion 2b and 6) with the article. Once those issues are addressed you are more than welcome to renominate the article.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)