Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure/GA2

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Review Pending
As this is the longest un-reviewed article, I am tagging this for review. It will take me several hours to review the material. Expect a detailed analysis by May 7 or May 8. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've examined the references and found that they link to other (many red linked) cases of which themselves would contain the material for the reference. I do not believe that is acceptable, especially considering the volume of the cases and the length of each one. For Herring v New York I was expecting something like a link to the actual summary judgement which points to a specific section or decision. Such as this. Where the first line summarizes the content, "A total denial of the opportunity for final summation in a nonjury criminal trial as well as in a jury trial deprives the accused of the basic right to make his defense..."

Without links to verifiable material I cannot pass this, most readers want a link to the citation or something material which allows independent checking of that matter. Here is where I essentially have a problem, the case (as a whole) is listed where they have to be independently searched out and some have dozens of pages of material without a page or a section noted. Such as: That being said, most of these are verifiable with simple searches. Could you please respond to this matter, as for references this seems to be allowable, but given the existence of so many easily verifiable online references (usually copy and pasting the case into Google), if proper relevant texts can be accessed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The wikilinks are for the convenience of the reader if they choose to follow them. In the case of redlinks, their use is to (1) indicate whether or not Wikipedia has an article about that case; or (2) become useful as soon as such an article is created. I've never seen a Supreme Court case determined non-notable at AfD, and new articles about Supreme Court cases are created every day, so the redlinks themselves should not be a problem.
 * As for verification, the source cited is the the United States Reports, not some website. Offline sources are accepted routinely and universally on Wikipedia, and there is no requirement that each reference contain an external link to the exact line of text referred to. Other editors are more enamored with Justia (and similar sites) than I am. Rather than list its many infirmities here (for example, the fact that there are now hundreds of thousands of broken links to Justia on Wikipedia because of the regularity with which they change their url system), I simply note that there is no policy requiring each case citation in a reference to contain an external link, and that it should be at the discretion of the main author whether to do so. These sites are free as in "free beer," not freedom. We owe them nothing. Savidan 15:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not doubting they don't exist because they aren't notable, just that they haven't been created and interwiki sourcing is frowned upon, but for the sake of technical matters regarding sources changing URL types often enough to warrant simply citing the case is no problem. I'll spend some time cross checking the facts and the sources, I've done a few and found no reason to doubt the paraphrasing of the article thus far. It seems the last reviewer to do this disappeared on you, its been waiting for such a long time and I want to have a clearer picture of the situation.
 * I've also noted some of the images being used in the article are involved in a legal dispute, the photos of the paintings, a separate matter for which make me a tad uneasy on a GA article review. While under USA law they are fine, the on going dispute (several years so far) is of concern to me. While I address the other issues, is there a better substitute or option for the King George III painting and Walter Raleigh? I might ask for a second opinion if you don't want to switch them over, because they are appropriately tagged, but ongoing legal disputes are a concern for this reviewer. 6.A of the GA criteria states, "(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;" and while it doesn't detail legal disputes, I do have reservations as to whether or not it is a factor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that interwiki sourcing is a cardinal sin, and this article does not commit it. The source is the official report of the decision in the U.S. Reports. The interwiki link is no different than any other situation where Wikipedia has (or could someday have) an article about the source being cited (ditto for an article about the author of a source).
 * As for the images, could you be more specific? I am aware of no reason why any of the images would not be regarded as in the public domain in the US (which is the only jurisdiction Wikipedia follows for this purpose). If you are referring to the George III image, the tags on it make clear that the image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia (and Commons, which is even stricter); they are only there to warn people who might republished in other jurisdictions. Savidan 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no worries. I didn't realize that trying to pin decent references would be defeated by shifting of URLs which would break them all again. They are fine, just don't want other people to ask the same question later and I have no response or reason for not having URL sources when they were so easy. The image matter has this tag, "While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof."  While the stance is, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs."
 * For that concern (mainly for those who would use this article in the UK), I had some reservations. Given the stance I do not believe those two images should prevent it from GA, but I like second opinions. The whole dispute is over the picture of a public domain work being copyrighted, the work itself is not, but the dispute is over the picture being copyrighted. The matter concerns all of the works in the National Portrait Gallery it seems. More on it here. Its the only reason why I am asking if a substitution is preferable to you or if I should ask the relevant board for their opinion on the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the NPG situation. I do not prefer to substitute. The Foundation and community have taken the position that the images are OK, and that is good enough for me. Savidan 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then its good enough for me to! I will begin analyzing the content in the coming hours. Still expect a detailed review tomorrow or Tuesday. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
This is a good article! I know I moved ahead with some concerns, but with those concerns dispelled I will pass this now!