Talk:Good Samaritan law/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is a bit short, and does not summarize all the sections (notably consent and concerning professional personel). The entire section "general guidelines" is a list; it should be rewritten into prose. Under the Canada section, it is a bit confusing whether only these four provinces (plus Quebec) has Good Samaritan laws, or if all of them have it. I've done a small copyedit. A few tips: Don't wikilink in headers; instead use the main template. Also, do not use blod face for such words as never; instead use italics for emphasis.
 * OK, did a good bit of copyediting, expanding, trimming, and reformatting. Let me know what you think? Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Is this "in popular culture" really necessary? This is after all an encyclopedia, not a sit-com guide—especially taking into account the broadness of the law, it has probably occurred as part of hundreds of episodes and movies.
 * I don't have a problem with nuking it, but another editor invested some work in cleaning it up--I'd like to get his input before arbitrarily doing so. The Seinfeld series finale, however, is an understandably major popular culture appearance--If there's any one popular culture reference that merits inclusion, that would be it. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think we definitely need to keep the Seinfeld reference in. I found a NYT reference on ProQuest which discusses the finale in detail and explicitly calls the statute a Good Samaritan law.  There's an LA times review as well, but the NYT review looks more in depth. I'd call that enough sourcing to keep the Seinfeld ref in.  The Desparate Housewives reference seems rather recentist to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it is quite a notable incident then, in which case I have no problem with it staying. Arsenikk (talk)  19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * Just an idea: are there no pictures on the commons of an actual situation? If there are, it would be a good illustration, if there isn't, there is nothing to do about it.
 * Commons has 23 relevant images, most of which depict the parable rather than the legal context. We could try and find an EMS/rescue image that obviously involves laypersons vs. professional rescuers, but there would not likely be any documentation that a Good Samaritan law directly applied. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this to you discretion; the article is illustrated, and as such meets the GA criteria. A two relevant ones I found digging around the commons included Image:Suicide-prague.jpg and Image:2008TourDeTaiwan Stage7 2nd crash.jpg, though this is far from a complete search. Arsenikk (talk)  19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad pictures, but I'm not sure either one would show well on a thumbnail. I think we'll stick with what's there now, until a bit more compelling one comes along. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have placed the article on hold; there are some issues in the prose to deal with, mainly related to the use of lists. Plus I would like feedback on the comment on the "in popular culture". If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to express them. Arsenikk (talk)  15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have placed the article on hold; there are some issues in the prose to deal with, mainly related to the use of lists. Plus I would like feedback on the comment on the "in popular culture". If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to express them. Arsenikk (talk)  15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I will begin addressing these issues promptly. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've made an effort to address each issue you've raised. Please review and let me know what other improvements you would like to see made.  Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations with a Good Article! Arsenikk (talk)  09:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)