Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade
I have cleaned the article up, and met NPOV concerns. Now, the article seems to me totally neutral, and very comprehensive and well-written. It includes a complete history of the case and it tracks the controversy as it has developed from the 1970s. This is a self-nomination. Noah Peters 06:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters


 * Object. No references. Lead section is too long. (Yes, I know, I know, but...Lead section) Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Added references. Noah Peters 09:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters.
 * You can't just "add references". Adding them without using them either in the writing of the material or to substantially fact check the material that is in the article is intellectually dishonest. To what extent did you fact check with the added references or use them to add material? - Taxman 14:01, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the phrase "added references" to infer intellectual dishonesty. I would give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the author added "his" references until otherwise demonstrated, before weighing in so strongly. Sfahey 00:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was if they were not used properly. I am saying that unless specifically affirmed that they were used properly by the person adding them after the request is made, then they should not be considered proper references. Therefore I asked to what extent were they properly used. That answer is very important. - Taxman 00:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Added long lead section 199.111.225.59 00:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
 * It does need a better lead. I also wish it was a bit longer. It's a very important case. Not an objection. Everyking 12:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, not comprehensive. What Everyking said. Neutralitytalk 00:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is inactionable (and therefore invalid) unless you specify what exactly is missing that could be discussed. &rarr;Raul654 20:00, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * In what way is it not comprehensive? It's very thorough. I discuss almost every aspect of the case. 199.111.225.59 01:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
 * I don't understand what the objection is. This page is just as long and comprehensive as the Lawrence v. Texas article, and indeed is much less speculative. I realize many would like it more if it had less focus on the resistance to Roe, but I have to be historically accurate. If you read any references I listed on the page, and none of those authors is a conservative, you cannot help but be struck by the resistance to the decision. So no, I can't replicate the triumphant tone of the Lawrence article. 199.111.225.59 04:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters
 * Object. Lead paragraph needs triming.  Material in the third and fourth para.s should be incorporated in other sections.  Also see remaining POV problems in the main article.  First, why the peculiar focus on Sarah Weddington in the "History of the case" section?  Her role deserves mention, of course, but what is the evidence that the case originated at her particular "behest", particularly given the fact she was a law student, as the article says, when the case started?  Also, why is her picture the only one appearing in the article?  --Second, I am dubious that Blackmun originated the concept of the trimester, as the article seems to suggest.  Should have more discussion of Blackmun's rationale for adopting this analysis.  --Third, in the section "Controversy over Roe" the article uses the term "partial birth abortion".  This is a political term, and a very loaded one at that.  At the very least, quotation marks are needed.  --Fourth, there is considerably more space and emphasis given to the arguments of anti-Roe / abortion forces than those of the pro-Roe / abortion rights forces in the "Controversy" section.  --Fifth, other than the links for the opinion text and the oral argument, the only external link offered is for an anti-Roe / abortion advocacy organization.  Edeans 02:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly concur with Edeans' criticism of the way the term "partial birth abortion" is used, and I don't think putting quote marks round it would be enough. There's a good discussion of the POV implications of the term at its own article, partial birth abortion. Bishonen | Talk 05:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The article seems balanced to me. For each alleged anti-Roe allusion, there appears to be sufficient pro- material, including the sole photo being of the protagonist herself.  It is not unnatural for such an article, like a law text, to be bereft of pictures. I was mired in grad. school during "Roe", and had ... until reading this article and some other material to which it led me ... continued to be muddled about how it all came about.  My only problem here is, as with others, the curious inclusion of the long quote in the overlong "lead". Instead of just criticizing, I will move it, and perhaps some of the prior voters might then rescind their objections. Sfahey 05:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article. I would like to see a longer References section, but that's a preference not an objection. Regarding long leads, I nominated an article for featured article status recently, and some of the objections were that the lead was too short and had to be 3-4 paragraphs. Yet this one is being criticized for being too long. Perhaps there are inconsistent recommendations somewhere? SlimVirgin 13:03, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The "lead" went from three lines to four paragraphs/entire page during the nomination process, and has now settled at an appropriate length. previous "objectors" might take another look.Sfahey 21:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Well done, though I would appreciate some mention of the context of the decision, in particular the gradual state-by-state liberalization of abortion law since the 1960s and United States v. Vuitch. - BanyanTree 01:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no axe to grind here except that I think this is (now) an uncommonly well-written, well-documented, and balanced article. I believe the main editor answered the objections (whether they have been stricken and reconsidered or not). The arbiter of which articles pass and which go back to the drawing board needs to consider the difficulty of getting unanimity on ANY controversial subject, the danger of FA's thus becoming mostly "fluff" pieces, and the possibility that not just article content (which appears NPOV to me here), but "objections" as well, may be POV. Sfahey 00:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Well written and very comprehensive. Gkhan 17:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, done. Thank you. when Noah Peters, the editor that added a number of references after they were requested, confirms to what extent he used them. The editor has not been active since I left a message on his talk page. See above. - Taxman 18:34, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The choice has been made and it is now a featured article, but I needed to edit it for errors.  The previous author clearly had not read the case but instead relied on second hand summaries.  I made some major revisions to the "abortion" portion of the "Supreme Court's Decision, expanding on the Court's decision.  Pencil Pusher 00:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)