Wikipedia

Talk:Fedorenko v. United States/GA1

< Talk:Fedorenko v. United States
Latest comment: 5 days ago by SilverLocust in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago23 comments2 people in discussion
Passed. SilverLocust 💬 08:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 10:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: SilverLocust (talk · contribs) 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll give this a go this week. I have read through the article once but haven't checked every criterion yet. SilverLocust 💬 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theleekycauldron: I've filled out my initial comments. Once you have made any changes you find appropriate, I should be able to pass it. SilverLocust 💬 03:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    • I did some small copyedits. If you disagree with any, let me know.
    • and that it did not necessarily apply to its analysis anyway – This doesn't seem very clear.
    • The Supreme Court's ruling that Fedorenko was ineligible as a matter of law owing to being a Treblinka guard in the first place assisted government officials in future cases against suspected Nazi collaborators – I'm not sure what "in the first place" means here.
    • [Edit: This one I have added after my first pass.] Harry Blackmun argued that the Court should resolved the Chaunt to the instant case – Needs fixing. Maybe "Harry Blackmun argued that Chaunt should have resolved the case". (Also note that "the instant case" is legalese that should be eschewed in favor of things like "here" or "in this case". E.g., [1], [2], [3].)
    • The first prong affirmed the widely agreed-upon standard... – It would be clearer to just state that standard again, like "The first prong reiterated Johannssen's standard that any disqualifying fact is material".
    • ...while the second designated facts material where – There should be a better word than designated. Maybe "while the second prong extended this to facts where".
    • Equity: I don't think this section leaves the reader with an understanding of why it matters that the claim is equitable. E.g., it could note that cases in the courts of equity were not historically decided with a jury, unlike in the common law courts, and that the Seventh Amendment follows that practice by guaranteeing a jury trial in cases at common law (but not in equity).
    • Supreme Court has made past rulings that narrow the set of rights normally available to defendants – The civil jury right belongs equally to plaintiffs and defendants.
      • I'm not sure what this and the last bullet are aiming for. Could you elaborate a bit? I would say that the section is important because the case concerns a facet of equitable discretion (whether a court in equity can ignore illegally procured citizenship), but despite the fact that equitability should give courts leeway to make decisions outside of the strict text of the law, the courts used to have a very strict interpretation of naturalization requirements (and remnants of that still apply to this case). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
        1. By adding "meaning that a court can rule based on a consideration of the facts and the fairest result, rather than a strict interpretation of the law", you've addressed the first of those two bulletpoints. (I would hedge the statement more though; equity will sometimes rule based on fairness, but at other times it follows the law, even if unfair. The source cited gives an even less hedged statement "When a court sits as a court in equity, it is entitled to arrive at a result that is equitable or fair, even if that is not the result the law might require." Fedorenko is, of course, a counterexample to this statement, given that the Supreme Court said, in effect, no, you were not entitled to do that. This source's description of equity isn't very sophisticated. In reality it's a pretty technical and and well-developed subject. See, e.g., Smith, Equity as Meta-Law. For context, equity is pretty poorly understood among U.S. lawyers – certainly relative to in the Commonwealth. See Kull, Equity's Atrophy. But I digress.)
        2. "Despite the proceedings being designated as equitable, the Supreme Court has made past rulings that narrow the set of rights normally available to defendants in equitable proceedings." This sentence is cited to the wrong ref. (It should be with [28] rather than [29].) And the way this has been paraphrased from the source introduces misunderstanding. SCOTUS didn't narrow the rights available in equity. A feature of equity (in the chancery sense of the word) since its origins 700+ years ago is that it's decided by judges/chancellors and not by juries. Rather, by determining that denaturalization is equitable, what it narrowed was the rights available in denaturalization. As to the "normally available to defendants" portion, the source does specify "defendants" here in the context of denaturalization. But the right to a jury (when it applies) belongs to both plaintiffs and defendants (i.e., to litigants generally), and a jury trial is more often desired by plaintiffs than by civil defendants. (The other narrowing of rights identified in that student note was from SCOTUS saying the case was civil (whether it had been legal or equitable). The right against self-incrimination has less force in civil cases, where an adverse inference is allowed from silence, than in criminal cases.) SilverLocust 💬 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • the Lazarett – It was never explained what the Lazarett is.
    • when asked to point to a man in the room – Presumably he was asked not to point out a man but to point out Fedorenko.
    • feared deportation to the Soviet Union, which was thought to be easily fatal – "easily fatal" sounds strange to me here
    • instead ruling that its second prong only applied – It would be helpful to remind the reader of what the second prong is.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. 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):  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    I checked 18, 20, 23, 33, 55, 60, 70:
    • 18:  Y
    • 20:  Y [Tangential remark: Chaunt also refers to the statute as the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1906".]
      probably where Binder got it from, although I still think it makes sense to stick to the current common title. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • 23:  Y [More or less, though the last sentence suggests that the compromise identified by the source was that an investigation was necessary but not sufficient. But that leaves out part of what the source noted as making the ruling a compromise: "The Government, however, would not have to prove that the false statement would have been determinative of eligibility had the truth been disclosed."]
      Well, I think the Ninth Circuit would disagree with that interpretation :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • 33:  Y
    • 55:  Y
    • 60:  Y [All of these sentences appear to be supported by Getschman, whereas the two NYT sources cited do not mention the BIA or Canada, so I would move Getschman to the beginning of the footnote or just omit the two NYT sources.]
      the other sources fill in some details, and Getschman cites them anyway, so might as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • 70:  Y
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    At least according to the copyvio detector tool.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    Nothing stuck out to me as being needed.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    Nothing stuck out to me as being needed.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    (Photos of the defendant and majority author.) I would suggest a photo related to Treblinka extermination camp. (And if he weren't just mentioned in passing, I might also suggest a photo of the Attorney General. It's unusual for the AG to argue a case personally, although it may have been less rare in the past.)
    Any suggestions? Couldn't find any good photos of the camp... maybe of Jews being deported to the camp? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, that's the best I can come up with. E.g., File:Deportation to Treblinka from ghetto in Siedlce 1942.jpg SilverLocust 💬 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fedorenko_v._United_States/GA1&oldid=1253676145"