Talk:Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Footnotes should go after the punctuation, not before.
- "with the finality of certain arbitration decisions."->"with the finality of trial court decisions to uphold arbitration agreements."
- Reword: " there was no way to vacate the initial judge's decision."
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- 11th Circuit decision should be supported by footnotes to the 11th circuit opinion.
- How about parallel cites to L.Ed. and S.Ct.?
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Explain that Randolph claimed that the uncertain costs of arbitration undercut her rights under the Truth in Lending Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
- Can you explain what effects this case had? Were there more arbitrations as a result? Are there any law review articles discussing this case?
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
The nominator has not participated in Wikipedia since March 13, the day before this review. I have reached out to him without a response, so I am respectfully failing the article, with the hope that he comes back, considers the concerns noted, and renominates after revising the article. I am sorry that it did not work out. Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)