Talk:United States v. More/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I found the first paragraph of the WP:Lead hard going and it lead me to start doing another review before this one.

I'm now going to review the article section by section, starting at the Background section and finishing with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Background -
 * untitled subsection -
 * Appears to be compliant.


 * D.C. justices of the peace -
 * Appears to be compliant.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * D.C. circuit court -
 * Should "he" be replaced by "be" in "A]ny final judgment, order or decree in said circuit court, wherein the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the value of one hundred dollars, may he re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the supreme court of the United States, by writ of error or appeal, which shall be prosecuted in the same manner, under the same regulations, and the same proceedings shall be had therein, as is or shall be provided in the case of writs e Of error on judgments, or appeals upon orders or decrees, rendered in the circuit court of the United States.[16]"? Note: "ef" (which I've also marked) should, I believe, be "of".
 * I fixed them, anyway. 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this subsection is OK.


 * Criminal appeals -
 * I assume that "capital", referred to in the third paragraph in respect of capital cases and non-capital cases means "capital" as in Capital punishment? Can a link be given?
 * Now added. Pyrotec (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this subsection is OK.


 * Companion cases -
 * I suggest that it would improved the flow of the article if this section was downgraded to a subsection of the same name and moved into the Background section.
 * I moved it, anyway. Pyrotec (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is unreferenced.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC) 19:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the article would "read better" if some of the information given here in the first paragraph was incorporated, with possibly a minor reworking, into the first paragraph of the (untitled subsection) of the Background section as it clarifies some of information relating to District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801. For instance, both Background section and this section refer to last day appointments, but the detail behind it such as Lame duck (politics) does not appear until this section is reached.
 * Now fixed. Pyrotec (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this section appear compliant.


 * Indictments -
 * Appears to be compliant.

... stopping at this point. To be continued (on Friday). Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dismissal -
 * Untitled subsection -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Majority-
 * There were a number of technical/legal terms that lacked the necessary wikilinks to enable a non-specialist reader to adequately understand the text. I added three links, including a pipeline from Sustained to Objection (law).


 * Dissent -
 * I think the phrase "'...."times States."[55]" was a typo, so I changed it to "times Stated."[55].
 * Otherwise, this sub-subsection looks compliant.


 * Oral argument -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Opinion & Aftermath -
 * These two sections look compliant.


 * Analysis -
 * Looks compliant.


 * WP:Lead -
 * Looks compliant.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As the nominator (Savidan) is listed on his talkpage as "Semi-retired" and seems to have last edited on;y once since 19th/20th September 2012. I fixed any "problems" that arose during the review. most of which were simple typos or lack of wikilinks. Pyrotec (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As the nominator (Savidan) is listed on his talkpage as "Semi-retired" and seems to have last edited on;y once since 19th/20th September 2012. I fixed any "problems" that arose during the review. most of which were simple typos or lack of wikilinks. Pyrotec (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As the nominator (Savidan) is listed on his talkpage as "Semi-retired" and seems to have last edited on;y once since 19th/20th September 2012. I fixed any "problems" that arose during the review. most of which were simple typos or lack of wikilinks. Pyrotec (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations to Savidan on producing an informative and well illustrated article on this US Legal topic. Pyrotec (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)