Talk:Same-sex marriage in Maryland/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 17:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The entire article needs a good copy edit for clarity. The lead needs cover more and needs to properly follow WP:LEAD, WP:MOSBEGIN and MOS:BOLDTITLE.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

New reviewer
Amadscientist is unable to finish the review, so if it is alright with everyone here I am willing to take over it. AIR corn (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Aircorn, welcome. I've seen you around, thanks for relieving Amadscientist. I look forward to your feedback. Teammm  $talk email$ 00:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats a worry. I usually make edits while I read as I find that easier than pointing out minor grammatical errors. If I make an edit you don't agree with or changes the meaning please revert me. I will leave comments here as I go. Most of them will relate to things I didn't understand or think could be explained better. They may not be part of the criteria and are all challengeable. The last part will relate directly to the criteria and will be a lot less negotiable. AIR corn (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, got a little distracted and internet is running slowly here. Left some comments from my first read through. I have only looked at the history so far and I have some concerns on broadness. The title suggests that the article is on the topic of same sex marriage in Maryland, yet the history just seems to deal with one lawsuit. Surely there is more history than this. AIR corn (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) ✅. ✅. ✅. ✅. I think. ✅. ✅.
 * I think it begins too abruptly with the suit. There must have been some history before 2004. At the very least it would need an introductory background sentence leading up to this case.
 * The ACLU of Maryland Would spell out ACLU as I had no idea what it meant. The link goes to the overview article of the ACLU whereas I would have expected the Maryland division from the link, making it a bit too easter eggish.
 * I don't really like multiple commas in a sentence unless they are serial commas. It can be confusing when it comes to reading the sentence. I am not sure why in the first sentence in the body there needs to be a comma between recently died and to challenge. It is more confusing as parenthetical commas are used earlier.
 * not quite as bad but a similar case appears in by officials and who later a few sentences along and also respectively.
 * They argued I first thought this was the defendants.
 * Some civil rights groups praised Judge Murdock's decision, while opponents increased efforts to prevent the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This needs a reference and if possible we should avoid using "some" and "opponents". It is better to name the supporters and opponents (unless it is an introductory sentence and they are going to be named somewhere else - opponents probably falls into this category given the rest of the paragraph). This is a statement I would be tempted to add a who tag to.
 * Prior to one vote What does this mean? Actually I find that whole sentence a bit confusing
 * Reading the next paragraph made it a little clearer, but if possible it would help to explain it better. Assume the reader knows virtually nothing about legislation (don't need to explain everything - wikilinks are your friends)

✅. ✅. ✅. ✅. ✅. I tried a rewrite, with additional content and citation. I appreciate your help. I look forward to any other problematic areas. Teammm $talk email$ 19:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dwyer's resolution failed in a 19–3 vote by the Judiciary Committee A bit to lawyeristic. Is there a wikilink to what the Judiciary Committee is?
 * Conaway v. Deane What happened to Polyak?
 * Judge Lynne A. Battaglia wrote a ... This sentence is quite long and a little unwieldy. Did Battaglia and Bell write it together? If so why not include them at the start (i.e. Judge Lynne A. Battaglia and Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, wrote a...) Otherwise I am not sure why the "joined by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell" is tacked on.
 * Other commas that disrupt the flow more than helping it.
 * schools, and
 *  plaintiffs, expressed

I haven't forgotten about this. Impressed with the work done above and will look at the rest this weekend. AIR corn (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks AIRcorn. Teammm  $talk email$ 23:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the long delay. I have read through the rest and checked some references and am happy enough to pass it. It does give the impression that it is written by someone for same-sex marriage, but I don't see anything that is non-neutral. The only suggestion I would make is to turn the discussion on the Lawrence (under opinion poll) into a note as it stands out as it is the only poll critiqued. If it is not reliable it is probably best not to include it. AIR corn (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and consideration, AIRcorn. I thought it would be best to not include it. Teammm  $talk email$ 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)