Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lawrence v. Texas/archive1

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Neutrality, Law and Supreme Court cases. Sandy (Talk) 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Only one in-line citation and a few scattered external links in the article itself. This does not pass 1c. Hbdragon88 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Lacks sufficient cites (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 09:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd prefer if the article had a bit more about the aftermath and what happened as a result of the case. JoshuaZ 20:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if the article had more on the affects of the case, but the law doesn't move terribly quickly so courts are still deciding what the implications of Lawrence are. For instance, the Supreme Court hasn't heard any case since Lawrence that raised the same issues. So, it is impossible for the article to have a comprehensive review of the effects of the case for several years.Dekkanar 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking in terms of social and political aftermath not just legal. JoshuaZ 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Aren't all these court reporters inline cites? What the hell else are they?  I agree that more references should be added (especially for interpretive statements), but this article has more than five inline cites, even if they don't appear at the bottom.  Moreover, it's not in an obviously worse state than Roe v. Wade.  But yes, cites for all the bullet points under "Broader implications" would be useful. Cool Hand Luke 04:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see how the opinions sections are already cited (learned this while citing my own court cases in a recent essay), but the whole section talking about history (like no-fault divorces) all needs to be cited. If you don't think Roe v. Wade is an FA either, nominate it as well, but please don't use the article status of Roe to justify the status of Lawrence. Hbdragon88 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC, work still needed. Sandy (Talk) 14:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria are inline citations and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) And prose. (Tony1)


 * Remove—Poorly written: when it comes to matter legal, precision of prose is of great concern. The lead is appalling:
 * Very clumsy opening: "not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy"—Shouldn't that be "finding that there is no constitutional protection of sexual privacy"? "The Lawrence court held that"—better as "The Lawrence judgment"?
 * "Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private." Remove "attempt to"; no two ways about it. Remove "acting". Heck, there's a lot of redundant wording ....
 * "The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs were filed in the case. The decision, which contained a declaration of the dignity of homosexual citizens, was celebrated by gay rights advocates, hoping that further legal advances might result as a consequence"—"The case ... the case." The agency for "hoping" should be crystal clear. "Hoping ... will", not two hedge words (might). Remove "as a consequence". Tony 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak and reluctant remove. I like the analysis, but the lack of inline citations is a huge problem. The article mentions previous Supreme Court decisions and achieves a high-level legal analysis. But the lack of any scholarly backing, and subsequently, of citations, do not allow me to support it. There are also some stylistic problems, such as some external links not properly linked.--Yannismarou 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove. Prose problems, mixed reference styles, inadequate referencing, and no one is working on it.  Sandy (Talk) 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I was a bit more familiar with the Americal legal system, I would love to work on this article!!! It is so close to FA status after a slight copy-editing and the addition of the missing sources. Unfortunately, my library does not include books of Americal Law and I do not know to what extent I should trust Internet source.--Yannismarou 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove per Yannismarou.--Aldux 14:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)