Talk:Santosky v. Kramer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments
Hi -- thanks all the hard work you have done to improve this article! This is a very important case and I am excited to see that you have nominated this for GA status. I will complete a comprehensive review this weekend, but I wanted to offer a few preliminary comments:
 * 1) References: Per WP:CITE, your citations should include the page number of the sources you are citing. When citing the Court's opinion, you should cite to the page(s) in the United States Reports in which the material can be found. Additionally (and this is a little outside the scope of strict GA requirements) MOS:LAW states that " for articles on cases, case law, or subjects which use a large amount of case law, it is recommended that editors use the referencing style for the jurisdiction that heard that case or for which that legal subject applies." Therefore, you may want to consider using the Bluebook style (though, again, this is not a strict GA requirement).
 * 2) Breadth: Can you include more background information about procedural due process under the 14th Amendment as well as sections about subsequent developments in the law and scholarly analysis? All of those are main aspects of this topic which should be discussed in further depth.

I will have more to add soon. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on (and so quickly no less!). I haven't clarified the quote citations yet, and since I don't actually know bluebook style, I probably won't make that stylistic change right yet choosing to focus on the content. I've started to add more to the article and will be looking into subsequent developments and scholarly analysis. This is the first SCotUS related article I've written so hopefully you'll bear with me as I'm rather outside my element, and if you have suggestions or opinions feel free to be liberal with them as any feedback is appreciated! Wugapodes (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've addressed your points. I realize that I've added a lot since your last pass through, so feel free to take some more time and tell me if I should add more, or if other things need fixed. Thanks again for taking this on! Wugapodes (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Full review
First and foremost, I want to commend you for the incredible work you have done to improve this article. It is incredibly difficult to write about complex legal topics in a manner that is easy for laypeople to understand, but you have done an excellent job with this article. This is certainly well on its way to passing, but there are a few issues that I think still need to be addressed:


 * Lead: I would start a new paragraph with the sentence that begins with "In a 5-4 opinion ...." In the second paragraph, I would add a few sentences about the majority opinion's reasoning, the dissenting opinion's objections, and information about the ultimate impact of the case.
 * Discussion about substantive and procedural due process: You have done a nice job with this section, though I think you may want to include separate subsections for both procedural and substantive due process so that readers can better understand how each of these doctrines functions. You may also want to include an introductory paragraph in this section of the article that explains the interrelationship between substantive and procedural due process. Specifically, you should explain that citizens are entitled to procedural due process when they are threatened with a deprivation of substantive due process.
 * -Substantive due process: This is an exceedingly complex doctrine, and you have done a nice job explaining this. However, I think you may want to go into a little more detail to explain to readers why parents have a fundamental right to associate and live with their children. Furthermore, Dred Scott and Skinner really aren't the best examples of cases in which the Court's ruling was based in substantive due process (both cases are now considered obsolete). Can you choose different examples?
 * -Procedural due process: I think this section should be developed further to explain the principle that citizens are entitled to procedural due process when that citizen would be deprived liberty or property (see Goldberg v. Kelly and its progeny). In this case, this is significant because John and Annie Santosky were entitled to procedural due process because New York attempted to deprive a right secured by Substantive Due Process (the right of parents to live with their children). Additionally, you should explain the Eldridge balancing test, since it is an important component of the Court's decision.
 * I didn't break up the sections or expand them too much. If readers want more information on due process, the links to those pages are a better place for that coverage. I think what is covered so far gives the necessary background for understanding the decision (but obviously, if you disagree let me know and I can try and fix that). I expanded on the Eldridge test a bit more (which is it? I've seen both Mathews and Eldridge in the sources and just sorta went with the first one I saw which was Mathews test). The source cited specifically mentions Dred Scott and Skinner which is why those are included (mostly because I don't really know substantive due process case law and so just went with what the source pointed out instead of trying to come up with my own). If you have better suggestions, let me know! Wugapodes (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your hard work on this section. I made a few minor edits, but I think this part is good to go. I have seen some sources that call the Mathews v. Eldridge test the "Matthews" test, and I have seen some that call it the "Eldridge" test. When referring to cases by shorthand, most scholars will usually go with the first of the named parties, but Matthews is a fairly common name so some scholars may have chosen "Eldridge" to distinguish the case. As for the examples of Dred Scott and Skinner, I went ahead and deleted those because they are considered discredited cases. You provide four examples of other cases later in the paragraph (Roe v. Wade, etc.) so I think that will be sufficient. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Citing all claims: There are a few portions of the article that appear to be unsupported -- please make sure that all assertions are supported by inline citations to reliable sources. Per MOS:LAW, "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both." When supporting assertions about the Court's ruling, you should cite to the opinion itself, rather than the syllabus. In fact, syllabi include warnings that state the syllabus does not reflect the Court's official position, as syllabi occasionally include significant mistakes (see United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.).
 * I've removed references to the syllabus. I'm unclear on what needs to be cited. Per WP:V only "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" needs inline citations. I believe all my quotations and contentious material have been cited, so if there are particular claims you think need references, please let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When I initially wrote this comment, I was referring to the first and last sentences of the sub-section about the 14th Amendment and due process. However, upon further reflection, I realize that these are fairly uncontroversial statements. Now that the citations to the syllabus have been removed, it looks like all relevant portions of the article are substantiated by inline citations to relaible sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * References: This isn't a dealbreaker in terms of passing this GA review, but I strongly encourage you to use references that include page numbers for the page of the opinion on which the cited material appears.
 * Information about subsequent developments: Your summary of subsequent developments is a great start. Can you also include information about how this case has been interpreted by subsequent SCOTUS decisions or federal court of appeals decisions? If you have access to Lexis or Westlaw, you can find the answer to this question by "Shephardizing" this case, and if you don't have access to those databases, you can check recent law review articles to see if anything has been written about this. You can also check this list. You should definitely discuss Troxel v. Granville and possibly also Reno v. Flores.
 * ✅ I believe Wugapodes (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fantastic work with this section. You have provided a fantastic, comprehensive summary of subsequent jurisprudence on this topic. Well done. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Impact section: This section consist entirely of commentary that is critical of the Court's ruling. Per WP:WEIGHT, you should make sure that section accurately reflects the consensus among legal scholars; I know that some scholars have assessed this case more favorably than Madsen and Gowland. Even if a majority of scholars are critical of the Court's ruling, you should provide a summary of opinions that support the Court's ruling. For that matter, there has been considerable scholarship about this case; you should cite articles that are more recent than Madsen and Gowland's 1984 article. Compare, for example, the assessments in this 1983 article, this 1994 article, and this 2014 article.
 * Sorry that the links don't work. Here are the citations
 * Raymond C. O'Brien, An Analysis of Realistic Due Process Rights of Children Versus Parents, 26 1209 (1994).
 * John Thomas Halloran, Families First: Reframing Parental Rights as Familial Rights in Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings, 18 51 (2014).
 * Let me know if you have trouble finding them. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I believe. I added in some favorably analysis and removed a bit of the negative that didn't really add to the coverage so I think it is more balanced now. Wugapodes (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent work balancing out this section. Well done! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know if any of these comments are unclear, though I want to emphasize that you have done a fantastic job with this article. Please feel free to take as much time as you need (within reason, of course) when making these changes. When responding to the comments listed above, please be sure to not strike through any of the comments listed here so that we can reference these comments when finalizing the review. Thanks agains for taking the time to work on this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delay in all of this. My life got a little hectic so I haven't had time to work on this. I will get on it in the coming days though. Thanks so much for the incredibly thorough review! Wugapodes (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , feel free to take as much time as you need with this. I've been pretty busy at my job this week, and there is certainly no need to rush things :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent job so far on this article! I'll go through and do another full review this weekend (probably Sunday, though there is certainly no need to finish everything by then ... I'll just take a more comprehensive look at what you've already done to improve the article). Thanks so much for your hard work! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to access the first two articles you linked (as in, the pages don't load), could you provide the citations so I can try and find them? Wugapodes (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is very close to passing. As soon as you balance out the impacts section and revise the portion about the 14th amendment and due process, I think this will be ready. However, I also strongly encourage you to cite to the page of the opinion on which the material in this article appears, and I would also add a picture of Justice Blackmun (since he was the author of the majority opinion in this case). I also provided citations to the linked articles in my response above. Overall, your work has been fantastic. Thanks so much for everything you have done to improve this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all your points. Added a photo of Blackmun, expanded teh due process background, and balanced out the impact section. Take a look and let me know what you think about the changes and if there is anything else you think should be tweaked. Wugapodes (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on this article! I am pleased to say that it has passed all GA criteria. Congratulations! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)