Talk:United States v. Jackalow/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 19:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Hi, I will review this article, though it may take me a few days to get back with comments. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose needs some work, notes below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Solid looking article, well laid out
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Need to do "References" section with fuller cites, citation material a bit incomplete, cite templates preferred, Smallcaps are not standard MOS and particularly in "Notes" section are distracting. I would suggest altering reference section titles with the shorter section now labeled "footnotes" renamed "notes, then the "notes" section can be titled "references" with the "references" section titled "Sources" or "Bibliography" Concerns now addressed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources appear reliable, need to AGF for a few not viewable online.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appears solid, some sources not available online, so AGF
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	NPOV met
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems here
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images check out at GA level, one jpg with questionable status replaced with identical .png with proper attribution.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	y\| }}

Comments by reviewer: There are a few things I'd like to see fixed before I pass this article. It overall is pretty nice, but here are my concerns:

Smallcaps aren't preferred by the MOS, they particularly look odd in the footnotes, where both regular upper and lower case citations mix with smallcaps cites. I'd like to see the smallcaps gone entirely from this article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The smallcaps are required in the citation style used, which is Bluebook and which is preferred for legal articles, see WP:MOSLAW. They have been used throughout wiki, including on an article recently promoted to FA. Until there are citation templates for the Bluebook style, it will not be possible to use templates. IMO, this article meets and exceeds the standard for references. GregJackP Boomer! 13:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just reread Wikipedia:MOSLAW and it says nothing about smallcaps or a preference for the bluebook. And the cite case template doesn't deliver results in that form. I looked in my copy of The Bluebook, and there are times smallcaps are used, but they are extremely specific (and widely ignored in practice). But it looks like another editor tossed the most inappropriate uses anyway, plus my other objection, that citations were incomplete, appears to have been fixed, so I think we have a moot point. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSLAW states: "Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions. If multiple citation styles are acceptable in a given jurisdiction, any may be used, but be consistent, and consider using the most common." The U.S. Supreme Court uses the Bluebook for citations in all of their documents, not only decisions, but anything that is filed with the Court. In addition, WP:Citing sources#Citation style states: "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist (some relevant Wikipedia articles include Citation, APA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook)" (emphasis added). The current edition of Bluebook (19th ed.) provides for smallcaps in the following circumstances: "Authors and titles of books, including institutional authors" and "Titles of periodicals." (See B1, Typeface:Caps, Academic Citation, p. 4). Looking at the citations, and being aware of the creator's background, I'm certain that the citations were correctly formatted (unlike now) under the Bluebook rules. For example, "The New York Times" is mentioned in several references, and while that is the correct title of the newspaper, when cited under the Bluebook style, it is cited as N.Y. Times (see T13, Periodicals, p. 444). Basically, under that style, all of the newspaper names, law review names, book titles, and book authors should be in small caps. It's not something that I'm so concerned with so as to revert or re-edit the matter, but the use of smallcaps is acceptable in the citations, based on the style used. Like I mentioned, a SCOTUS article just went through an FAC and was promoted, while using that style. The question of smallcaps was brought up there and addressed. My main concern is that we don't prohibit the use of that style, nor punish those that use it by refusing to promote articles. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the Bluebook style has to do with the price of beans, but even in the article body the newspaper's title was incorrectly given several times as "the New York Times", so I think a bit of cleaning up was in order. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George. The Bluebook citation style makes extensive use of abbreviations in citations. For example, "National Association of Broadcasting" would appear as "Nat'l Assoc. of Broad." under the Bluebook rules. Likewise, "The New York Times" is always abbreviated in citations as "N.Y. Times", the "Harvard Law Review" is always "Harv. L. Rev.", etc. The abbreviations are just part of the citation style. There are also (what I consider silly) rules about no spaces between single letter abbreviations but spaces between multiple letter abbreviations (so the Southwest Reporter, 2nd, is S.W.2d; but the Federal Supplement Reporter, 2nd, is F. Supp. 2d). The ALWD styleguide that Montanabw uses is a simpler and easier system to use (and many feel a much better system), but the Bluebook is more common. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who originally wrote this was using smallcaps more than was needed (a.m. and p.m. in article text jumped out at me). George, the relevance of the Bluebook is that it's one of two major guides to legal citation for American attorneys, just FYI. However, since reading Greg's reply above, I have reviewed the Bluebook and while technically yes, the version I have (which is about 12 years old, I personally use ALWD now) does use smallcaps for some references, but the rules of the US Supreme Court makes no reference to requiring use of the Bluebook for briefs (I did a word search AND read Rule 33 in its entirety), though I am aware that this will be the most common format used. However, here, my concerns with the refs was more that many of them were incomplete, the smallcaps issue was a mere style concern, and I would not have failed the article solely on this point. However, Wikipedia is neither a Law Review nor a Supreme Court brief, and the other editor who has stepped in and made the article consistent throughout has done a fine job and I'm comfortable with the end result. I will note the smallcaps issue in any future GA reviews of law articles and not raise it unless it's improperly used, but I'll also note that this is a guideline, and in practice, other than SCOTUS and law review articles, you seldom see this form actually used. Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Montanabw - my main concern was article failure just on the basis of using Bluebook cites. And you're right, Bluebook is not required by SCOTUS rules, but it is what is used almost exclusively there. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph of "Background" section is quite complicated and hard to follow. Needs a rewrite; I'd give and example, but have no access to sources and would hate to sever notes from source. But basically, it is not quite clear who "Jackalow" is (John Canoe?), and it's best to use last names ("Leete"< not "Jonathan") whenever possible - realize that we have brothers involved, but the more formal approach would be to minimize use of first names), and most of all, it took me about three close reads to figure out the chronology; it's mostly a sentence structure problem, there are too many asides and dependent clauses, some material isn't needed. Try something like this (just a suggestion, fix it your own way):
Jonathan T. Leete had once captained the schooner Reaper, crewed by his friend John Canoe, nicknamed "Jackalow," short for or "John Low" or "John Lord." (cites) Canoe was of East Asian origin (cites). Jonathan gave up command of the Reaper (in year 18__), and both men went to work on the farm of Jonathan's father, Daniel Brown Leete, on Sachem's Head in Guilford, Connecticut, where Jackalow was regarded as family.[7] At some point, in New York, Jackalow had stolen $100 from Jonathan and fled to New Haven, only to be returned to New York by the police.[8][9] Jonathan refused to testify against Jackalow and rehired him.[8] Later (specific year would be good if you have it) Jonathan and his brother, Elijah J. Leete, bought the 30-ton sloop Spray, funded in part by a mortgage their father took out on his farm.[9] Jonathan captained, and along with Elijah and Jackalow sailed the Spray together for two or three years.[9]
Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just overall, you have WAYYY too many clauses that create run-on sentences; try making things into more sentences with fewer dependent clauses. When in doubt, kill some commas! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.

Images work, the one of the house may need further verification of pre-1923 publication date if you take this to FA, but otherwise all is fine. The .ppg version of the Ryukyu islands had an iffy tag on it in commons, but it cross-referenced an identical .png with the proper tag, so I boldly swapped the two images. I hope to hear from you soon on the prose editing issues, as I can't quite pass it as is, but I'd prefer not to give it the "on hold" hammer, either. I left a message on the talk page of the primary editor, I hope someone will respond. Montanabw^(talk) 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed, GA pass. Would like the lede to add a note on the significance of a decision such as this during the Civil war, per the last section of the article, but that's a personal style concern for me, not a substantive GA issue. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]