Talk:Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 18:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominator: Khazar2

I will study this article over the weekend, and I hope to have the review complete within a week. – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I'll look forward to your comments. I'm doing a bad job of wikibreak so far, to be honest, but do feel free to take your time. My availability will be intermittent for the next two weeks as the move progresses, so I may need to ask you for a longer than usual hold. We'll see. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Regarding my reviewing style: issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended. – Quadell (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 6b Captions should end with periods when they are complete sentences, but should not when they are fragments. So the "Bill of Rights" caption should not have a period, but the "Potter Steward" caption should.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 6b The images of Madison, Stewart, and Wilkes give a brief description of who the person is and why he is relevant to the article. The Otis image could use such a caption.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is very good, and leads are difficult to get right. All of the material in the infobox and in the "See also", "Notes", "Bibliography", and "External links" sections seems appropriate and well-formatted.
 * Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a I think "it inevitably would have been discovered" is better than "it would have inevitably been discovered".
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * All images are legitimately free, and are relevant to the topic.


 * I am not qualified to determine the appropriateness of the list of "Important cases". It seems to me like a rather lengthy list, and "important" sounds like an arbitrary designation, but I understand you know more about the subject than I do. Would that list be better as a separate list article?
 * ✅ I inherited this from a previous draft, and it's actually something I planned to ask you about. I completely agree; it's an unsourced judgement, free of context, and the fact that it contains so many redlinks suggests to me that it's not a very selective list. The blue links are mostly redundant with the article text, and with Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law. If other users feel strongly that it should be here, I'm glad to discuss it further, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I talked to a public defender friend of mine, and she agreed that there is no impartial way to list the most important 4th Amendment cases. Having them in the category is a much better way to find related cases. – Quadell (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The prose in the "text" section is a run-on sentence with too many commas. It should probably be rewritten for clarity. Face-wink.svg
 * Ha! I'll pass on your comments to the author who put that in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1b "King's Messenger" is not a term I'm familiar with. Is it the same as Queen's Messenger? If so, a link would be helpful.
 * I believe so, though my sources don't clarify. Linked. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax" is such a great name! I think I may have to give my daughter some sort of stuffed animal with that as its name.
 * Agreed! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 6b In my opinion, this image of Charles Pratt would be more fitting in the section than one of John Wilkes, since Pratt made the ruling and Wilkes was less directly related. Would you agree?
 * Yep--images swapped. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1a Good caption. But should there be a comma after "Camden"? – Quadell (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the name "Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden" works as a single unit, rather than "1st Earl Camden" being an appositive phrase that needs a second comma after it--this is how it is in the article's text as well. But I'm not 100% sure on grammatical forms for British royalty. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll assume a comma isn't needed, and if someone determines that one is needed after all, it won't be hard to add. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a I made some minor grammatical changes (here) to the prose of "Colonial United States". (It seemed easier than explaining each minor quibble.) Do these all seem warranted to you? If not, feel free to revert any part and discuss.
 * I reverted one that seemed to introduce an ambiguous pronoun. Technically "he" is supposed to refer to the last male named in the text, which here would be Otis rather than Adams. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. – Quadell (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2b Why are there two references for the Virginia Declaration of Rights quote? They seem to be successive pages in the same book.
 * I'm not sure how that got there; removed the extraneous citation. This quote is on 161. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 3b This is borderline, but it seems to me that the last three paragraphs of "Proposal and ratification" go into unnecessary detail on the ins and outs of ratification, especially concerning the amendments that were not ratified. These paragraphs don't mention 4A directly, and although much of the info is relevant, it does seem to off on a bit of a tangent. I see that all of the information is in the United States Bill of Rights article already, so I would think a bit of the material from these paragraphs could be trimmed.
 * Okay, I removed mention of the two amendments that failed to pass, and more explicitly highlighted the Fourth. But I do think it's worth detailing what states ratified the amendment, and the battle over that ratification. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna say that's good enough. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a The first sentence of "Applicability" feels clunky. The word "generally" in "to mean that generally a warrant must" feels out of place, and the ending of "for a search or an arrest" (rather than, say, "for a search or an arrest to be valid") makes it difficult to understand precisely what is meant. I'm not sure how to fix it though. I know that, in law, precise meaning is extremely important, and I wouldn't want to rewrite the sentence in a way that is more flowing if it became less accurate as a result. Would it be correct to say it this way? "The Fourth Amendment has been held to mean that a warrant must be judicially sanctioned in order for a search or an arrest to be valid, with only limited exceptions." (Also, I think it would be helpful to link warrant, which would be fine since the it is not linked outside the lead.)
 * I agree that it's a bit awkward and rewrote it to be more direct. But I think the "generally" is slightly more accurate here than "limited exceptions." I read in one source from the '80s that something like 2/3s of law enforcement searches in the studied state fell under exceptions to the amendment; it was a bit too dated and state specific to include in the article, but my impression is that more searches fall outside the warrant requirement than within it. Let me know if you think this is okay. Oh, and I did link warrant. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, your wording is much better than mine. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a I removed two commas.


 * 1a The last sentence before the "Search" section is troubling. After all, only two of the three "questions" are actually questions... but if the last one is written "how should violations of Fourth Amendment rights be addressed", would it need a question mark? I'm honestly not sure how to word a list of questions in a single sentence and make it grammatically correct. Perhaps it should be made into a list, as is done with the Smith v. Maryland two-pronged test in the next section?
 * Changed to "issues". -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like there has to be a correct way to do this for questions. But your change neatly sidesteps the issue; it is both correct and clear. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish threshold question were an article. Several legal articles mention it, and it's not immediately obvious what it means. The concept isn't even mentioned at the Threshold dab. Ah well. That's not a criticism of this article, just a note. – Quadell (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a The phrase "on the heels of general warrants" isn't as clear as it could be.
 * True. I've simply struck the phrase. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are no links to dab pages. The only duplicated links are curtilage and probable cause, but I think both are appropriate. So, no problems there.


 * 1a Consider making the e.g. at the end of "Search" into a footnote instead. It seems to me this would be an improvement, though I'm not insistent. Certain other offhand comments throughout might be better as footnotes as well, though that's a question of style I suppose.
 * I think it's worth leaving the example in-text. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a In the "When a person is arrested and taken into police custody" sentence, I think i.e. would be more appropriate than e.g.
 * I could go either way on that, but fair enough. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a I would prefer "so long as the arresting officer has probable cause" instead of "if the arresting officer has probable cause" for subtle reasons. ("If" does not require a comma before it, while "so long as" does. The sentence is complex enough that a comma is useful. Also, I feel that "so long as" describes the ruling better.)
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a I think the second sentence of "Exceptions" could be reworded for clarity. It has gerund phrases, passive voice, and several subordinate clauses before the subject. Lord knows I love gerund phrases, but perhaps something like this would be clearer: "...the Court ruled an officer has made an illegal seizure when he stops an automobile and detains the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile, unless the officer has articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law." (But it could probably be worded even better than that.)
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a The second paragraph of "Exceptions" is also clunky. There are essentially three "when" clauses, but there is only a comma before the third. Technically it would be correct to add a comma, as in "Where society's need is great, no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal," but this also feels clunky. Perhaps "Where society's need is great, intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, and no other effective means of meeting the need is available,"? One might prefer "Where society's need is great, where no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and where intrusion on people's privacy is minimal," but that's starting to sound like a product of a state legislature. Perhaps "Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, certain discretionless checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists, so long as intrusion on people's privacy is minimal." Or perhaps I'm overthinking this one.
 * Added the comma. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rereading it in context, it doesn't sound as confusing as I'd thought it would. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1b Sometimes you use spaces en dashes, and sometimes you use em dashes. WP:MOSDASH instructs us to "Use one or the other consistently in an article."
 * I have no objection to your cleaning that up if you're interested, but since it's not a GA criterion, I'm going to pass on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * With the few 1a issues I have brought up, the prose really is excellent throughout much of the article. It's livelier and more engaging than most legal articles. (The paragraph on Terry stops, e.g., is far better than the prose at Terry stop.) So, well done. As for the "Exceptions..." supersection, it can be very difficult to summarize precise decisions in a way non-lawyers can understand, while not losing accuracy. I'm rather nit-picky in the points below, but this really has the opportunity to explain this information clearly to a casual reader, so please don't be discouraged.
 * Okay, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1b The half sentence that makes up "Exceptions to the warrant requirement" is less than ideal. I suppose you could leave it out, since it really only reiterates the section title. Or it may be better to treat it as a mini-lead-section, having perhaps two complete sentences that sums up the need for exceptions in general and the categories of exception given below.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a The sentence "However, they may not extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers or consent from the passenger(s) to search their persons or effects" could be improved. Would this work? "However, they may not search any passenger of the vehicle unless they have probable cause to search that specific passenger or consent from that passenger."
 * Tweaked this, though I think I prefer something closer to the original. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite do it. Let me explain: my only three concerns are that I want it to be accurate, comprehensible, and grammatically correct. Any wording that achieves these is fine. In this case, the sentence still refers to "passengers" (assuming plural) twice, but uses "passenger(s)" (allowing the possibility of a single passenger) once. I'd like to see the (s)-construct used only when absolutely necessary, so that's why I suggested a version that uses the "any" singular throughout. You can use whatever sentence structure seems best to you, just so long as you don't alternate whether we could be discussing a single passenger or not. See what I mean? – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. (s) construct removed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a The final paragraph/sentence of "Motor vehicle" is unclear to me. It's a long and winding sentence, with many provisos, and I'd like it to be as clear as possible. Can it be broken up without losing meaning? The second point is relatively straightforward (and probably the primary one used), but the first point conjures up several questions: Is an unsecured arrest a thing? What's "the passenger compartment of the vehicle"? (Does the driver's seat count?) Could an officer decline to secure and arrestee in order to search a vehicle? And does this requirement contradict the previous assertion that "[w]ith probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle"? Maybe I'm just dense...
 * I don't think this is a sentence that would be clear if it were broken up, but maybe you could propose an alternative? "Passenger compartment" is the court's phrase here per the source, and I'm reluctant to rewrite it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, court decisions are often difficult for a layman to understand, and that's not the article's fault. I suppose it would be too much of a sideline to define all the terms and conditions of this one case. But I'm still unclear (both as a reader and as a citizen): can a police officer search any part of a vehicle with only probable cause of criminal activity? The previous paragraph says yes, but this one seems to say an officer would need a warrant (after an arrest) except in special circumstances. It seems like an important contradiction to me. Am I missing something? – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My assumption is that the passenger compartment is the vehicle's whole interior, excluding the trunk and engine compartment. This is how our article Trunk (automobile) uses it, for example. But automotive terms are definitely not my strong point!
 * As for when an officer can search, she can search a vehicle if a) she believes evidence of a crime is likely to be present or b) the suspect is not yet secured. My understanding is that this second exception gives officers latitude to look for weapons or other objects that might create an officer safety issue before the suspect is secure. Anyway, I've tweaked the language in the first paragraph to more obviously parallel the second, let me know if it helps. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! Excellent, thanks. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a The words between em dashes in the first sentence of "Searches incident to a lawful arrest" are not clear. Perhaps the entire sentence and the next could be reworded this way? "A common law rule from Great Britain permits searches incident to an arrest without a warrant. This rule has been applied in American law, and has a lengthy common law history." What do you think?
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a When you say that the court in Rabinowitz "reversed its previous ruling", it sounds as if you're referring to Trupiano. It's also unclear whether the previous ruling held "that the officers' opportunity to obtain a warrant was not germane to the reasonableness of a search incident to an arrest", or whether the reversal held that. I don't think it's important that a previous ruling was reversed, and only adds confusion to mention it, so it may be better to say simply that the court "held" that... whatever the court held. Or, if the previous (overruled) ruling in fact held that the opportunity was not germane, then a rewording could make that clearer.
 * Added a word to clarify this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It still feels to me like the text is saying that Rabinowitz reversed Trupiano. But another editor I asked didn't get that impression, so I guess it's not an important-enough problem to insist on. – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, your reading was correct. I've added language to clarify further; sorry for the confusion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a It seems to me that it would be better to say "The decision suggests" such-and-such and "does not define" so-and-so, rather than using the past tense, since the decision still exists.
 * It appeared to me that the sources I consulted tended to use the past tense in describing decisions; I'd prefer to stay with that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I was going with WP:MOSFICTION, which court rulings certainly are not. Now that I look into it, legal texts do seem to say thing like "this decision held" or "overturned" or "struck down". – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2b I have no doubt that the final sentence of "Other exceptions" is true, but it needs a cite.
 * I'll delete it if you want, but why do you say it needs a citation? It doesn't seem like "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements" to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it has been challenged in court several times, I think that makes it "controversial" enough to need a citation in a GA. How about this? – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sourced that half, deleted the other half of the sentence (about parole). -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2b The last paragraph of "Exclusionary rule" discusses the controversy, and it is well written. There are two sources given at the end (before discussion of the "Victim's Bill of Rights"), and the first, Levy, does fairly describe the controversy. The second, Greenhouse, is an opinion piece on the Miranda rule that only mentions the exclusionary rule in that secondary context. It does call the exclusionary rule "highly controversial", but doesn't offer any arguments. I don't think the citation is needed to supports anything in the paragraph. On the other hand, it might be useful to provide separate cites for each of the three opinions given ("that the rule hampers...", "that the rule has not been successful...", and what "proponents argue"). I think that would be ideal, but barring that, the Levy is the best source for all three arguments.
 * I usually like to have more than one source before tagging something as controversial, but I don't mind deleting this (and have done so). -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2b The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Limitations" is not cited. It also uses the word "should", and seems almost as if it is the writer's opinion. Perhaps "should" should be changed to "can then", but a cite is still needed.
 * Again, I'm not sure you're reading criterion 2b in the same way I am, but I'll delete. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1b I don't think a list format is warranted at the end of "Limitations". I don't think the information should be omitted, and I know it would be tedious to list each case and the outcome individually, but I think a happy medium could be found. It would work better to put the information in a paragraph with three or four sentences restating the information in the list, with the names of the cases only in the footnotes.
 * What other information do you think needs to be added here? It seems way clearer to me to just list these. WP:EMBED does allow lists that would simply be a long sequence of items in a single sentence, and that's what would happen here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure, so I'll ask a reviewer I know for an outside opinion. – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, it's debatable whether a list or paragraph would be preferable. But it's clear that either version could pass the GA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2a Notes b, c, and d instruct the reader to see specific case law for further information. Certain references (24, 31, 36, 39, etc., and perhaps 4 as well) seem to serve the same purpose. Why are some of these notes and others references?
 * ✅ Standardized. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2a Related to the above, some references refer to court cases like "414 U.S. 338 (1974)" (citation 119), while others spell out the name like "see Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008)" (citation 53), and still others refer to previous references like "Carroll at 162" (citation 71). All case citations should be formatted in the same way. Since multiple citations sometimes reference different pages of the same case, you might consider listing cases in something like a "bibliography" section (or subsection of the "bibliography" section), with the citations mentioning them by name and page. Or you could repeat the full citation at every reference; anything is fine so long as it's consistent.
 * I understand why this would be more desirable, but this is explicitly not a GA criterion per WP:GACN. In practical terms, it would be a fair amount of work to clean up while making no practical difference to the reader's comprehension. I've got no objection to your straightening this out if it bothers you, but I'm going to pass on doing it myself if that's okay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually had not read WP:GACN, and I'm rather surprised by some of the information there. It's going to change a few things about the way I handle GA noms. Practically speaking, a GAN is a great opportunity to identify and recommend improvements, even when they are not strictly necessary for GA status... but you're right, this is explicitly not necessary. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2a Further, some "Encyclopedia of the American Constitution" references specify "via HighBeam Research (subscription required)", while others do not.
 * Per above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Eh, this only took a second. Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2a You don't seem to have any IBSNs for the books referenced.
 * Per above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a GA issue, per WP:GACN. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 2a You have a couple of journal citations in the bibliography (Davies and perhaps Crisera), while other journal citations are directly in the references (Roots, in cite 14, or Freiwald, in cite 37). Books are mostly in the bibliography, but others (Schroeder's The Lure and perhaps the Intellectual Freedom Manual) are directly in the citations. These should all be consistent.
 * Per above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a GA issue, per WP:GACN. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a Another user has added information to the "Search" section, and then readded the same content (with only one word changed) in the "Seizure" section. I'm not sure that the summary he gives is accurate. Could you check it? Regardless, the information should probably not be restated the way it is.
 * 5? That particular content has been reverted, but there seems to be a lot of editing which may or may not amount to an edit war. I hope it can be stabilized at a neutral and well-supported version.
 * Issue resolved. – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is very good, and once these issues are resolved I look forward to elevating it. – Quadell (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for reviewing! I believe I've addressed most of your points, but I'm a little confused reading through the list of bullet points above what you see as falling under the GA criteria and what you don't. Let me know what you think still needs done and I'll try to address it in the coming weeks. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For the last several points, those regarding lists and references, I'll look around (and ask around) and get back with you later today. Besides those, there is one source issue and one extremely minor prose issue remaining, as well as one case where either the text is unclear or I am unclear. – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All are now resolved. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

-

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * All issues resolved.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * All issues resolved.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * All issues resolved.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * All issues resolved.
 * C. No original research:
 * Not a problem.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Very thorough.
 * B. Focused:
 * All issues resolved.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No POV problems.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * It seems stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Images are great.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All issues fixed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article passes all GA criteria, and goes beyond the criteria in most cases. It is engaging, consistent, and highly informative. Reference standardization is a clear opportunity for future improvement, and will be necessary if this article is nominated for featured status, which I would be delighted to see. It's been rewarding and very informative reviewing this; thanks, and congratulations. – Quadell (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)