Talk:Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n/GA2
GA Review 2
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 14:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.22 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments:
I am not a lawyer, and have not edited in the area of Supreme Court cases.
1. Well written: 
Section acceptable
- a. prose/copyright:
Question
Acceptable
- - This case took several years, and yet there are no dates (err... years). Seeing as one of the sources provides the dates, is there any compelling reason to keep them out? If not, I think it would improve the article to stick them in.
- - Handled.
- - This case took several years, and yet there are no dates (err... years). Seeing as one of the sources provides the dates, is there any compelling reason to keep them out? If not, I think it would improve the article to stick them in.
- b. MoS compliance: Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable:
- a. provides references:
Needs work
- - The item in 3a about civil rights (last one of the initial review) also comes into play here. The lead isn't sourced, and the only mention of that aspect of the case is in the lead.
- - Still an issue, see below.
- - Only one source isn't a primary source. It's not something that's against the rules, but it's not something that's very comforting either. Just saying...
- - Handled.
- - The item in 3a about civil rights (last one of the initial review) also comes into play here. The lead isn't sourced, and the only mention of that aspect of the case is in the lead.
- b. proper citation use: Needs work
- - What is "at 293" for the sources that link to law.cornell.edu?
- - Still an issue, see below.
- - Sources 1, 4, and 5 have periods at the end of them, but sources 3 and 6 don't. Please make them consistent, since they all go to the same document.
- - Handled.
- - What is "at 293" for the sources that link to law.cornell.edu?
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage:
- a. covers main aspects: Needs work
- - Did this case, as the timeline source claims, create "the entwinement doctrine"? If so, is it significant and has this been covered, either in relation to this case or when it came up as a precedent in a further case? If the answer to any of these is "yes", then this warrants coverage in the article.
- - Handled.
- - The First Amendment is mentioned in the Background section, but not at all in the Opinion of the Court section (my readong of the opinion is that the First Amendment wasn't really discussed at all there). Is there any way to mention that the First Amemdment arguement got nowhere, and do so without diving into OR? Any analysts covering the case mention it?
- - Still an issue, see below.
- - The first GAN reviewer mentioned friend of the court briefs ("Do you want to explain that the case drew a number of amici briefs from a wide variety of entities, and the positions that they took?"). What's your stance on mentioning those?
- - Still an issue, see below.
- - End of the article: "On other claims though, the case was sent back again to the Sixth Circuit." And... what happened to these other aspects? Did the case die out? Was there further action? Either way an additional sentence is needed to give this a more definite end.
- - Handled.
- - The lead mentions civil rights, and the impact this case had on the area, but it's not in the body. Things in the lead really need to be further detailed and sourced in the body.
- - Still an issue, see below.
- - Did this case, as the timeline source claims, create "the entwinement doctrine"? If so, is it significant and has this been covered, either in relation to this case or when it came up as a precedent in a further case? If the answer to any of these is "yes", then this warrants coverage in the article.
- b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
4. Neutral: Section acceptable
5. Stable: Section acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
- a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable
- b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer
- a. images have alt texts: Acceptable
- b. article is suitable for solid copy export:
Question Acceptable
- -I am not a fan of sources after commas. Would it make the statement inaccurate or misleading of source [6] were moved to after the period? It just looks better that way. If the answer is that moving the reference back would create an issue, please say so here, and by all means leave it where it is.
- -Handled.
- -I am not a fan of sources after commas. Would it make the statement inaccurate or misleading of source [6] were moved to after the period? It just looks better that way. If the answer is that moving the reference back would create an issue, please say so here, and by all means leave it where it is.
- c. catch all general aesthetics: Acceptable
Comments after the initial review:
It's well written, but I'm of the opinion that there are gaps here which need to be addressed before this is promoted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Done Hey ! :) I believe I've resolved most, if not all concerns. I've added a secondary source which definitely helped in some of the areas you said to expand. Please feel free to note if there's anything else to improve the article. Thanks for reviewing! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like you got about half of the issues. The things left unresolved (and one new question, the fourth item in this list), are listed below.
- - I noticed that in at least one case you removed the 531 source and replaced it with the Petronella source. In cases where multiple sources confirm the same information, putting multiple citations in (as in [1][2]) can't hurt. We never know what sites are going to go down or change addresses when, so it can't hurt.
- Done
- - Yep, looks fine.
- - It's not something that needs to be in the article, but could you respond below telling me what the "at 296." and "at 297." stuff means? I'd feel more comfortable confirming that the sources are fine once I understand the source notation you used.
- Sure! All Supreme Court decisions are put in a big book of cases, divided by years. The number "at 297" is a legal reference that would tell someone "go to page 297" of volume (for example) 345 to find the source. So for our case, 531 U.S. is the volume number, 288 is where the case starts, and the "at ..." is the specific page. Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - What's the trick to determining the page numbers in the physical print from the online source?
- On the online source, I believe if you view the document in PDF form it will give you the page numbers. Lord Roem (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - What's the trick to determining the page numbers in the physical print from the online source?
- Sure! All Supreme Court decisions are put in a big book of cases, divided by years. The number "at 297" is a legal reference that would tell someone "go to page 297" of volume (for example) 345 to find the source. So for our case, 531 U.S. is the volume number, 288 is where the case starts, and the "at ..." is the specific page. Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - I do not see how the contents of Petronella 2000, p. 1073 substantiates the sentence it is supposed to cite. 1063, however, states "The Court did not decide whether TSSAA had violated Brentwood Academy’s First Amendment right, but remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s determination that TSSAA was a government actor.", which is a statement that can be worked in somehow to address the involvement in the case of the First Amendment.
- Done
- - Err... okay.
- - Why does the citations section of the infobox list the same thing twice (531 U.S. 288 (more) 531 U.S. 288 (2001))? If it's supposed to, that's fine, just let me know.
- I can't figure how to fix that. I've seen it on most other articles, so I think it's supposed to be like that. Lord Roem (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - Okay.
- I can't figure how to fix that. I've seen it on most other articles, so I think it's supposed to be like that. Lord Roem (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - "While the Supreme Court would reconsider this same case in the future, this specific decision became important in civil rights jurisprudence." - Why? This is still the only time that civil rights is mentioned, the implications aren't straightforward, and it's in the lead section.
- Done; I reworded it to make more sense in context of the article. Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - Okay.
- - My question on friend of the court briefs hasn't been addressed. If you don't think any warrant inclusion, or don't think there's enough coverage, just tell me. If you don't add anything in, and you don't tell me you can't/won't add anything in, I have no idea if you saw the comment or not.
- Oh, sorry about that. I don't think this is needed for inclusion, as friend of the court briefs (amicus curiae) briefs are submitted all the time. When I looked it up for the first review, there were no real significant ones to mention - nothing out of the ordinary. Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - Thanks.
- Oh, sorry about that. I don't think this is needed for inclusion, as friend of the court briefs (amicus curiae) briefs are submitted all the time. When I looked it up for the first review, there were no real significant ones to mention - nothing out of the ordinary. Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sven Manguard Wha? 03:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Most fixed, some questions answered above. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- - A soon as you answer my followup to the docket question, I should be comfortable promoting this. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Most fixed, some questions answered above. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
PROMOTED Looks good to me. Pleasure working with you. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)