Wikipedia:Peer review/Clinton v. City of New York/archive1

Clinton v. City of New York
I wrote this a little while ago and it has not since been edited by another person, so if anyone has some improvements or articles that should link to this one, fire away. - Centrx 23:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Opening paragraphs are rather confusing. Make clear the three elements: (1) the participants; (2) the law they challenged; (3) the judgement. At the moment these are all mixed up. It would be nice to set the case in a bit of context (by linking to an article about the line item veto act, if one exists, otherwise by writing a paragraph about why it was passed). What happened next? Needs the code for the case, and a category. Gdr 11:38, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
 * You have good material here, but I would rewrite that first sentence so what you're defining comes first, e.g. "Clinton v. City of New York is a Supreme Court decision regarding the Line Item Veto Act.". You should also include the citation to the U.S. Reports right after the first reference.  While briefs or the opinion may say "et al", they aren't used anywhere else.  Just put Clinton v. City of New York and it'll look fine.  Did you include a link to the text of the case, either to Findlaw or the database at Cornell's law school?  Ave atque vale!PedanticallySpeaking 19:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is unnecessarily legalistic and verbose, e.g. "duly enacted statutues", "in a concurrence of the opinion." The substance is there, it just reads like a lawyer's brief.  The Supremes are an interest of mine; if I can help, please let me know.  Ave!  PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)