Wikipedia:Peer review/Washington v. Texas/archive1

Washington v. Texas
This peer review discussion has been closed. I would love to work with another interested editor in improving both the style and substance of this article for a prospective run at FA. It is a Good Article, but another pair of eyes would certainly be useful in bringing it to the next level.

Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments I'm not that familiar with the intricacies of the laws, but here are a few notes. "Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows a defendant the right to have critical witnesses testify in his favor."
 * I'm using United States v. Wong Kim Ark as a kind of launching point here.
 * There are quite a few words and phrases that are appropriately used, but are not really in plain enough English for Wikipedia. Currently, the article reads like an official legal document (i.e. predicated, reiterated, etc.)
 * There are lots of quotes here, and I think it might be appropriate to paraphrase a number of them to use a summary style in the article.
 * Single words especially should not be used as quotes except in some rare cases. If that's the word the opinion used, it's fine to use it here. Using the same lexicon as the law is not plagiarism by any means.
 * I would strike the word "landmark", considering it doesn't carry any specific meaning in this context (unless there's a specific legal definition of the word I'm not aware of).
 * The first sentence should state what it is (again, this might be my lack of legal skills, but the "decision" would part of the case, right?), the direct thing that the Court held or did not uphold, and then the aspect of the law it regarded.
 * In other words:
 * Wikilink Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment the first time.
 * Regarding the last sentence in the lede, I'm pretty sure I follow what it means, but I'm not sure it's really as plain as it could be, especially for a lede section.
 * I'd add a see also template for Compulsory Process Clause underneath "History of Compulsory Process Clause jurisprudence"
 * Although the Fourteenth Amendment was passed through Congress in 1866, it was ratified on July 9, 1868, which makes the second sentence seem anachronistic to the first.
 * Rather than "he turned away from that Fourteenth Amendment analysis", which seems vague, how about "rather than issuing an analysis based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the opinion reviewed the specific guarantees of the Sixth Amendment..."
 * Strike "Indeed,".
 * The sentence "This broad right was necessary to explain as ignoring the breadth of the issue would risk making the right to compel witnesses futile," is very breathy and isn't very clear.
 * "'relevant' and 'material'" Are these quotes or just important words? Quotes need double marks, single marks shouldn't be used for emphasis.
 * ""arbitrary" because of its discrimination between the prosecution and defense served "no rational relationship"" I think striking "of" here will make this sentence clearer.
 * Justice Harlan's name needs to be listed in full (Justice John Marshall Harlan II) the first time, and Justice Harlan afterwards.
 * The sentence beginning with "Thus," can be moved to the preceding paragraph.
 * The lede section and this one are not necessarily contradictory, but they don't quite fit together. If its necessary to expand the lede section, that's fine, but since Harlan's decision was not really a dissent, the word "objection" is awkward in the lede.
 * The article is well-referenced, but don't be afraid to use a few sources in layman's terms so that the average person can learn more if desired.

That's all for right now, but feel free to comment back. Runfellow (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the review! I'll work through your suggestions in the next few days. Feel free to add more idea or areas for improvement. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked through your suggestions, so feel free to close the review. Thanks again for your help! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)