Talk:Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton
Latest comment: 5 years ago by DannyS712 in topic GA Review
 | Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 25, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
 | Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | A fact from Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 February 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
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 |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Review edit
Good Article review progress box
|
Notes edit
- Can the photo "Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton" be shown bigger? Its currently tiny relative to the other photos and even relative to its caption
Done ebbillings (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
the legislature would be able to continue to operate until the next legislative session when a political solution to this dispute can be reached.
- changes tense from subjunctive to present in the middle of the sentence
- Done Sentence reworded. ebbillings (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I marked this as not broad because the article fails to explain why the original dispute arose. It says
Dayton issued a letter explaining his vetoes; he sought to avoid a government shutdown while convincing legislative leaders to renegotiate provisions of the budgetary bills.
but doesn't explain what he wanted to renegotiate. It also doesn't explain much about the broader significance of the case. Other than than, however, the article is pretty good.
Partly done I have expanded the Background section with additional context surrounding the dispute and the particular provisions that Dayton wished to renegotiate. ebbillings (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done I also expanded the Ruling of the Supreme Court section with additional information about the litigation history of the item veto power in Minnesota. DannyS712, does this sufficiently address your concerns about the breadth of the article? ebbillings (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- After further consideration, I also added an additional bit of summary to the Reactions to the ruling section. ebbillings (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ebbillings: unfortunately, it does not. I still fail to understand the broader significance of the case. How was this more significant than any other case between different branches of government controlled by different parties? Can you expand on the short-term effect on the budget, and the longer-term effect on the political situation in Minnesota? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have added information to the Lower court ruling and Reactions to the ruling and aftermath sections that should explain the budgetary impacts of this case in a deeper way. ebbillings (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also added information regarding the longer-term political situation, little of which was directly impacted by this case. ebbillings (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ebbillings: 2 issues, 1 minor, 1 not: you start two sentences in a row with "although", which seems odd, and can you explain what the "Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commission" is? How can they just "provide" the state legislature with funds? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done Both issues addressed. (I would add a wikilink, but the LCC seems to be non-notable, and the Minnesota Legislature article does not currently contain a section or subsection about the group.) ebbillings (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ebbillings: 2 issues, 1 minor, 1 not: you start two sentences in a row with "although", which seems odd, and can you explain what the "Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commission" is? How can they just "provide" the state legislature with funds? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also added information regarding the longer-term political situation, little of which was directly impacted by this case. ebbillings (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have added information to the Lower court ruling and Reactions to the ruling and aftermath sections that should explain the budgetary impacts of this case in a deeper way. ebbillings (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ebbillings: unfortunately, it does not. I still fail to understand the broader significance of the case. How was this more significant than any other case between different branches of government controlled by different parties? Can you expand on the short-term effect on the budget, and the longer-term effect on the political situation in Minnesota? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- After further consideration, I also added an additional bit of summary to the Reactions to the ruling section. ebbillings (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This review is place on hold pending improvements as a result of the notes above. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
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.