User:Shalichan/sandbox

= Week 3 Article Evaluation = Chosen article: Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada

Evaluating content

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic, but there are some pieces of information that seem out of place in their given section. For example, in the section entitled "The courts below", it is not clear that the section is even talking about the decisions of lower courts.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * None of the information seems out of date, although this article would benefit from referencing how the ruling on this case has affected future events.
 * What else could be improved?
 * This article would also benefit from explaining what Section 1 and Section 2 of the Constitution are. While the Wikipedia pages for these two topics are linked, a brief description of the contents would have made the article more clear. Also, just generally, this article is quite short and doesn't do a good job of giving a thorough background on the case. Lastly, there are several grammatical errors that make the article more confusing to read.

Evaluating tone

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article appears to be neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The only reference in the article is the ruling itself. This article would benefit from including additional viewpoints.

Evaluating sources

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links to the citations work, and the source supports the claims in the article. However, there is a lot more information contained in the source that could have been included in the article but was not.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Each fact is not referenced with a reliable reference, but this is likely because all of the information in the article comes from one source. There is one section that does have any citations at all. The information comes from the official ruling on the case, which is biased in the sense that it represents the opinions of the judges on the SC, but neutral in the sense that the judges are supposed to make rulings as unbiased evaluators of the law. The bias is not noted, and no additional viewpoints are given.

Checking the talk page
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Other than my own comment, the only post on the Talk page is from someone who is speculating about what actually happened, but has no sources to back up his claims.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated Start-class, Low-importance by several WikiProjects. It is a part of the law, LGBT studies, and freedom of speech WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This particular ruling was not explicitly discussed in class.

= Article Selection = Article title: Cohen v. California (Cohen v. California)


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - The article's content is indeed relevant to the topic, but there isn't very much content.
 * Is it written neutrally? - The article's contributors have done a good job of not inserting their own views into the article. However, the only source that is used for most of the article is the official ruling report itself. Other potential sources or points of view (beyond those of the SC Justices) are not represented.
 * Does each claim have a citation? - Each claim does not have a citation. Because only one source is used for most of the article, the article's contributors presumably did not feel that it was necessary to cite every paragraph with the same source. I think this article would benefit greatly from referencing the specific locations of a claim, however, because there are 14 pages in the report and only the last four are actually credited.
 * Are the citations reliable? The citation is reliable, since it is the primary source (the ruling itself), and the article in its current state describes the arguments made in the ruling. However, as stated previously, because this is a primary source, we would benefit from including additional citations that represent a viewpoint beyond that of the Court.

Reliable sources that might be useful:


 * These sources were listed in the "Further reading" section:
 * Balter-Reitz, Susan J. (2003). "Cohen v. California". In Parker, Richard A. (ed.). Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. pp. 160&ndash, 171.
 * Fairman, Christopher M. (2009). Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Sphinx Publishing.
 * Other sources I found on Google Scholar/Regenstein Library Catalog:
 * Civilizing Public Discourse: An Essay on Professor Bickel, Justice Harlan, and the Enduring Significance of Cohen v. California - DA Farber (in Duke Law Journal)
 * A Look Back at Cohen v. California - William Cohen (in UCLA Law Review)
 * Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court - Thomas Krattenmaker (in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal)
 * (Need to speak to librarians about finding good sources at the Reg, since I'm having some trouble finding anything on the Library Catalog by myself)
 * Sources recommended by Experts:

Other notes:


 * On the Talk page of the article, one user links several high-quality articles on court cases that can serve as good templates for what this article could potentially look like

Other potential articles:

 * Hate speech laws in India
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is relevant to the topic, but a lot of the content is superfluous and unnecessary. Two of the sections are just a laundry list of news stories related to hate speech court cases.
 * Is it written neutrally? The article is written neutrally.
 * Does each claim have a citation? Most of the claims have a citation, but some do not. Also, parts of this article just copy long quotes from the Indian penal code.
 * Are the citations reliable? Many of the citations in this article are news stories reporting on cases. These are not reliable.

= First Draft: Cohen V. California Edits (moved to new Sandbox entitled "cohendraft") = Contributions are italicized.

Background of the case
On April 26, 1968, 19-year-old Paul Robert Cohen was summoned to appear as a witness inside the Los Angeles County Courthouse, where he was arrested in the corridor for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft". Cohen claimed that he wore the jacket in an act of protest against the Vietnam War. He was convicted of violating section 415 of the California Penal Code, which prohibited "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct," and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

The conviction was upheld by the California Court of Appeal, which held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace." After the California Supreme Court denied review, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari. The case was argued by Melville Nimmer, representing Paul Robert Cohen, and Michael T. Sauer, representing California.