Wikipedia:Peer review/Ontario v. Quon/archive1

Ontario v. Quon
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… it epitomizes what I think a U.S. Supreme Court case article should be (not in the least because it's a very recent case and all the sources are online and still there). And I think this could be an FA eventually.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. I found it very interesting and have reviewed it as if it were at WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Have you thought of using WebCite to archive some of the references?
 * Not yet, because I don't know how to use it. I'll look into it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several places where the article seems to need a ref. The last sentence of the second paragraph and the whole last (third) paragraph of the "Underlying dispute" section (especially the direct quote "tired of being a bill collector") needs refs. The first and last paragraphs of the "Existing law" section need refs too (though the first paragraph might not need one as a summary). The first paragraph of Litigation, and much of the Trial section also need refs.
 * There are also some block quotes that seem to be from the opinion, but I think would still need inline refs for FAC. For example, the block quote in the Majority section has no inline cite, and the block quote in Concurrences also needs a ref.
 * A large part of the issue here is that the decision is still unpublished (details below). Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The language is overall decvent but there are some places that need attention:
 * In the lead sentence, what does the undelined blank after U.S. mean? Ontario v. Quon, sometimes cited as City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. ___ (2010),...
 * OK. That means the decision has not yet been published, meaning that volume 560 of the United States Reports isn't out yet. Until it is, no page numbers are available (the numbers that usually go after the "U.S."), and using the underscore in their place is a legal convention. I imagine the decision will be published sometime in the next couple of months. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since his name is in the case title, I would mention who Quon is in the lead, so It was brought in federal district court by an Ontario, California, police officer who had been disciplined by his superiors for sending personal, sometimes sexually explicit, text messages with pagers they had been provided by the department for use on duty. could instead be something like Jeff Quon, an Ontario, California, police officer, brought the case in federal district court after his superiors disciplined him for sending personal, sometimes sexually explicit, text messages with a pager the department provided for his use on duty. (DId QUon have more than one pager??)
 * Note in the preceding example I also made passive constuctions into active ones, which tightened the sentence a little
 * I know Fourth Amendment is linked, but would it help to briefly identify what these rights are? I am guessing many Americans and most of the world would not know this without the link.
 * Article needs to be consistent on "the Court" or "the court" (both are used)
 * I also think the direct quotes in the lead probably need a ref.
 * Unclear - Scalia is one of the justices, so this seems contradictory (from the lead again) Outside commentators mostly praised the justices for this display of restraint, but it came in for harsh criticism from Scalia, who called it opaque. could it be something like Outside commentators mostly praised the justices for this display of restraint, but the majority opinion came in for harsh criticism from Scalia in his concurrence, who called it vague.''
 * The third paragraph of the lead is a bit vague to my eye. "It" is used several places where the antecedent is murky and "the opinion" or something similar might be better.
 * "those activities" is not super clear in In 2001 the Ontario Police Department (OPD) acquired 20 alphanumeric pagers to distribute to officers in its SWAT unit so they could better coordinate those activities.[3] Would ending it with "their activities" be clearer?
 * Probably better to split this sentence He was allowed to reimburse the city for the fee and told by Lt. James Duke, head of the department's Administrative Bureau, that his communications wouldn't be monitored if he did so,[6] but was also told to stop using the pager so much. so something like He was allowed to reimburse the city for the fee. Lt. James Duke, head of the department's Administrative Bureau, told Quon that his communications wouldn't be monitored if he paid the fee,[6] but Quon was also told to stop using the pager so much.''
 * Another awkward sentence A transcript from which messages sent when Quon and the other officer were off-duty had been redacted was sent to the OPD's internal affairs sergeant, and after an investigation Quon and the other officer were allegedly disciplined. I also wondered why "allegedly" is used here (it is not allegedly in the lead)? Perhaps something like After messages which Quon and the other officer sent when they were off-duty had been redacted, a transcript was sent to the OPD's internal affairs sergeant; after an investigation, Quon and the other officer were [allegedly?] disciplined. If it is known who did the redaction and sending, passive could be avoided here too (assume it was the wireless company)
 * Another awkward sentence In 1986, as more and more companies stored records with highly personal data about individual consumers in off-site databases operated by third parties, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act could be something like Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, which addressed issues raised as more and more companies stored records with highly personal data about individual consumers in off-site databases operated by third parties.''
 * First paragraph in Litigation needs some years / dates for context. When did the case start?
 * In litigation I am not clear if this is two courts or three After a district court found in favor of the defendants, a three-judge appellate panel reversed the decision. The circuit court denied a petition for an en banc rehearing... Is the circuit court the same as the appellate panel?
 * In Litigation, the plight of Quon's co-defendants is desribed before they are named themselves, which is confusing. Also, is the woman his ex-wife or his estranged wife?
 * It took me a while to realize that Litigation began with a summary and then discussed each part in detail. I would either make it clearer that it is a summary, or else get rid of it.
 * Really awkward sentence In 2003 Quon, his ex-wife, girlfriend[6][note 1] and another officer, Steve Trujillo, sued the city, the department, the police chief and Arch in Central California U.S. district court, Eastern Division, in Riverside.[note 2] perhaps something like In 2003 the trial began with Quon, his ex-wife, girlfriend[6][note 1] and another OPD officer, Steve Trujillo as plaitiffs; they sued the city, the police department and its chief, and Arch Wireless, in Central California U.S. district court, Eastern Division, in Riverside.[note 2] Is there any reason not to name QUon's ex and girlfriend?
 * I am not 100% sure what this means When the jury found in favor of the OPD, judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The Appeals section should also start by clearly stating who made the appeal (Quon et al.)
 * Watch overlinking - for example, Certiorari is linked twice in one section
 * Missing verb / fragment On appeal in 2008, a panel of two Ninth Circuit judges, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Harry Pregerson, along with Western Washington district judge Ronald B. Leighton[, heard the arguments?].
 * I am not a legal expert and I had a little trouble following what was going on - there are many places that use what I am sure is correct legal terminology, but which is not super clear to the uninitiated. I think it would help to make several of these clearer with brief explanatory phrases. For example, what exactly does it mean that "they reversed" in But they reversed since they found the search unreasonable as a matter of law.?


 * I am also confused by this Judge Wardlaw wrote a rare concurrence with the order, criticzing the dissent for ignoring the facts of the case. It is not clear to me what the order is, and since Wardlaw wrote the original appeal ruling, it seems that she could not concur with herself. Since she disagrees with the dissenters, I am not sure how she can concur with them.
 * Or in Briefs, I am not sure which side is " the respondents" (I think it is the city, but I am not sure why)
 * Orin Kerr is introduced with his full name and linked once - per the MOS he should be referred to as just Kerr (unless there is another person with the same last name) and per WP:OVERLINK he does not need to be linked again in the arguments section.
 * Well, it's a long section and I've seen reviewers get on editors' cases for not linking subjects again when they're mentioned for the first time in a few grafs ... you have to remember that sometimes people just skim an article till they get to the section they're interested in, and start reading there. I hate having to accomodate that, but it's a reality.


 * Petitioners - again adding a few words would help the reader by providing context During Richland's argument [for the city], ... - see WP:PCR
 * Watch contactions like "hadn't" (spell it out) and also watch for verb plus -ing constructions, which many reviewers at FAC really dislike. Not many of either that I noted, but a few. One place where verb + ing could just be past tense is Unanimously, the justices ruled for the city that the review of the texts had been a reasonable work-related search, discussing [discussed] the difficulties raised by the broader issues involved and ultimately declining [declined] to rule on them. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion...
 * In Majority, I would probably start each paragraph by making it clear that Kennedy is the author (and avoid he as the subject of the first sentence in a paragraph)
 * The Scalia image is in two sections and would look better if it were moved up so it was completely in the Concurrences section
 * I put it there so it sits opposite the grafs with his opinion. But OK. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The captions are not very descriptive - I think many readers look at the images first and captions can help pique their interest. Even something as simple as "Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Court." would be better.
 * Since almost all of the justices are mentioned by name in the article, I would use a SCOTUS image, probably in the arguments section
 * seems to have some legal knowledge and might be a good person to look this over
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details
 * Opinions of federal courts don't incur a copyright problem since they're PD. They can be quoted to the extent that is editorially desirable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)