Talk:Glasser v. United States/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 10:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Will start this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Review
 * I know better now than to argue with you over dense wording and other such issues. I do think that this is an exceptionally well presented article, laying out the legal history and ultimate legal resolutions and ramifications clearly. So I'll just mention two unclear points. What do these phrases mean:
 * "sitting by designation."
 * This means a judge appointed to one court is sitting on another court. Unfortunately, there is no article on Wikipedia to link to for further explanation (yet). I feel like I have explained this concept, at least somewhat, by noting the court that the judge is appointed to and the court that is hearing the case. I am hesitant to slow down the prose by explaining this concept much further (the procedures that go into determining which judges hear which case are not directly relevant to any of the issues in this case). If there were something to link to, I would. Savidan 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I gather from the context that a "judge is appointed" etc. I guess my question is, who does the appointing? Some overall presiding judge, or appellate court/judge or what? In other words, it sounds like a possibly partial process, depending on how the "appointing" process is carried out. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Assignment to actual cases is basically random within the judges on the relevant court. The chief judge of the court can approve federal judges from other courts to sit by designation. Savidan 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, doesn't reassure me though - "random with the judges" - how do they manage that? But I'll leave it be. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "placing the matter on the pending call indefinitely"
 * This is a quirk of Illinois state grand jury law (at least at the time). The only real relevance to the article is that the defendants utilized this procedural device to cause the case against the bribe-payors not to proceed. Savidan 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! A good legal article! MathewTownsend (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! A good legal article! MathewTownsend (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! A good legal article! MathewTownsend (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)