Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado/GA2

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

Reviewer: Connolly15 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 15 February 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
General Comments
 * I wonder if the article could be further expanded - has the case been followed or distinguished in any further rulings of the Supreme Court? I note that this was decided in 2004.  You could add a section on this in "Subsequent Developments" if applicable.✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  00:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For Support / Criticism ... did the case receive any main stream press coverage (the first sentence mentions the press)? This should be worked in if so. ✅ Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty locating main stream press coverage. I did find a New York Times article, but it essentially is just a summary of the holding. I will do some additional searching here. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  00:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After further searching, I still cannot find any coverage worth including. This is the Google search I used, which should find anything available in the online archives of mainstream news publications. The CNN article is just announcing that the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, the New York Times article is just a summary of the holding, and the USA Today article is just incidental coverage. The rest of the search results are from court records or scholarly publications. As such, I've decided to remove the mention of coverage in the media with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Under "Subsequent Developments" the first sentence shouldn't be there if the article is going to include the J.D.B. v North Carolina case as a sub-section in this section, as it is neither a scholarly publication or the press. Perhaps create a subsection on "Legal reception" and move the subsection there and include any more rulings there have been referring to the case?✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Split into separate sections with this edit. Added rulings referring to the case with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  00:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead
 * The lead needs to summarize the whole article. None of the "Subsequent Developments" section is included.  Try to work this into the lead in general terms, especially if the case has been followed or distinguished in subsequent rulings.✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the lede would benefit from a concluding sentence that explains the impact of the ruling (especially for readers who are not going to go on and read until the end of the article). Concluding with: "In a split decision, the Supreme Court declined to overturn the state court's conclusion because it was not objectively incorrect,"  doesn't give a good explanation of what the precedent set is.✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If lead is expanded further it might be helpful to break it into two appropriate paragraphs.✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to resolve all 3 lead issues with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations
 * *I see the previous reviewer suggested that the article adopt this format and pointed to the article Augmentative and alternative communication as an example. I like this format a lot, but the citations need to make it clear which Reference is being referred to. As in the Augmentative and alternative communication it provides the author and page number, and links to the full biographical reference. As this article is shorter, when I click on the page number it just brings me to the reference section (so I can't tell what source is being referred to (without seeing the coding of course)).  It would be better if each footnote included a "source short form" and page number.  For example, "Yarborough v Alvarado (Opinion), p. 7" and continue linking to the relevant source in the list of references as is done now. ✅Connolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved with this edit -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

*Don't provide full quotations in the footnotes unless it is particularly necessary for understanding. ✅Connolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved with this edit -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
 * I see you have made a lot of progress from the first review in wiki-linking concepts that are unfamiliar to the reader - I think a few more could still be linked (e.g. respondent, precedent). You should try to read the article from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with U.S. or even common law. Terminology such as "respondent" changes in different legal systems, and not all even rely on precedent - so a reader may not understand what these mean.  As I said though you've made a lot of progress in this area. ✅Connolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tried to resolve this through this edit. I linked respondent, precedent, charged, majority opinion, concurrence, and dissenting opinion. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thompson v Keohane - Don't Wikilink to a non-existent article - would it be appropriate to include a citation for the case perhaps? (Trial and Conviction section & Oral Argument Section)✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved with this edit. I opted to use quotations here because the cited option is all one page (i.e., I can't give page numbers). -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Images
 * Image issues: Supreme Court Building image (Oral argument section) is not free and requires attribution in the article. Please see the image creator's page for details: User:UpstateNYer/ImageAttribution ✅Connolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved with this edit. I've changed the image to one that is in the public domain. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor issues
 * Clean up: state-court v state court in the article.✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article uses the idiom "red herring" in the Dissent section. This violates WP:IDIOM in the MoS.  If it is a quote from the Judge, please reformat it as a quotation.  Otherwise reword to avoid idioms.✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Red herring was a phrase used by Justice Breyer, but I decided the article would be clearer without the term. Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As mentioned from the first review, the "See Also" section should not link to what is already linked in the article - likely the article doesn't need a See Also section at this point.✅Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Result
 * As these issues are relatively minor, I will put the review on hold for 7 days to allow for further amendments.
 * With my most recent edits, I've attempted to address all issues brought up above. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the review, the feedback was really useful! Please let me know if there are any other suggestions you have. -- Sailing to Byzantium  ( msg ),  19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)