Talk:Local authorities swaps litigation/GA1

GA Review
Overall comment: I felt like I came away from reading the article with a good understanding of a complex topic, which is an achievement worth celebrating. But I also felt like the article could have been better in many ways. I'm dumping my notes here, in hopes that it helps make the article better. As context, I'm a practicing US attorney in a different field, with two years of Latin.

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

Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Status query
LuisVilla, Legis, where does this review stand now? LuisVilla appears to have finished the review on March 13, and Legis did a series of edits to the article on March 14. Is there more for the reviewer to do (the last edit summary was not clear on that point), or for the nominator to address? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * : The edits made on the 14th address many of my stylistic concerns, but not most of my concerns about sourcing. That said, this was only my third(?) GA review, so I'd also be open to getting a second opinion if either of you think that would be appropriate. The article is quite good in a lot of dimensions, so I'd hate to see my inexperience be the cause of a bad outcome. —Luis (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * LuisVilla, if your sourcing concerns haven't been addressed, Legis should either do so or explain why it isn't appropriate. You could certainly request a second opinion if Legis disagrees with your assessment on the sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * : Unfortunately hasn't responded, so I don't know what he thinks of my feedback. Legis, if you're out there, let me know and we can request a second opinion or close this for now as appropriate. (To be clear, again, this is a really impressive article, and you've enriched us by writing it- just not GA :/ —Luis (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying. I have just been snowed with work.  I sort of acknolwedge the sourcing concerns - I think that those are easily addressed, but it is just going to take time for me to sit down and do it, and that is not likely to happen any time soon.  I think rather that keep this open indefinitely, the better course is probably to fail it as a GA.  When I can I'll come back and fix the sourcing (and other) problems, and then renominate at a later date.  Thanks, and sorry. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * – I will be closing this review on Friday, June 9. Please let me know if you decided to work on the suggested improvements and need more time. I'm willing to chip in as an additional reviewer. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * per 's comment on May 2 (which I missed at the time, sorry!) I went ahead and closed. —Luis (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)