Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for possible GA submission. 05:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: thanks so much for reviewing this article! Let me know if you have any questions along the way. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: It has been two weeks since you opened this review. How are things coming along? When do you anticipate that the review will be ready? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: My sincerest apologies. I haven't had the patience to review an article in awhile; after doing so many within a short amount of time, I grew a bit tired. However, this is not your fault, it is merely my own. I will review it ASAP, once again, I am very sorry. :( Carbrera (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: No need to apologize; I've been preoccupied for much of the last two weeks, so the timing actually works well. Thanks again for volunteering to review this and let me know if you have any questions along the way. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: Any update on when this review will be ready? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review Comments:

I am extremely sorry for the long delay I have caused before actually reviewing the article. Fortunately, this article is quite exceptional, so I will continue with the review now. I only have a few comments to share; here they are:

Infobox

• The "USPage" section has nothing but "___"; please change

Cases are only published in the United States Reports 3-4 years after the Court issues its opinion. The slip opinion indicates the volume in which it will appear, but we don't yet know the page number. For that reason, Bluebook conventions require that the page number be listed as "___" rather than a specific page number. For an example of how this works, see the citation for Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. on page 6 of Justice Thomas' opinion in Reed v. Gilbert. There is also an explanation of this convention at Case citation#Supreme Court of the United States. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• You can remove the "Subsequent", "Dissent", "JoinDissent", and "Overturned previous case" sections since they are empty and will likely never be non-empty

I removed the unused parameters from the infobox. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Paragraph 1

• Similar to the infobox, the "576 U.S. ____ (2015) is blank; please fix

See my comments above re: citations to the United States Reports. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

• There is absolutely no mention of Clyde Reed in the lead, despite the title of the article being "Reed v. Town of Gilbert"

I don't think that factual background about Reed's identity is necessary when summarizing the narrative of events in the case in the lead. Unless you think it seriously detracts from the summary of the article, I think we should simply say in the lead that the church filed suit, since it was the church that placed the signs. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Background

Good News Community Church

• The picture of Gilbert, Arizona used in this article is quite large and could be reduced in terms of the size of the image so it doesn't disrupt the article flow as much

I reduced the size of the image per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• At the end of this section, perhaps you could add that "failing to include the date of the event on a sign" went against the town's policies/laws? What do you think about that

I think the fact that the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited them communicates to the reader that the practice violated the town's sign regulations (the compliance manager certianly would not have issued citations if the signs had been set up in a manner that complied with the sign code). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinion of the Court

• The "Notes" section could be used with "[A]" or "[N1]" symbols instead of "[fn 1]"; I guess I just do not find this lettering style necessary when it can be simpler and still get the same point across

I changed the format of the footnotes per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• However, Justice Clarence Thomas' photo is a better size compared to the landscape photo of Gilbert, Arizona
• Provide provide a link for "Justice Clarence Thomas" in the photo caption please

I added a wikilink per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• You use "Justice Thomas" quite often; could you think of another way to clarify it's him who is speaking; you could even use "him" or "he" where applicable?

I replaced a few instances of "Justice Thomas" with "he" per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

• You also use "The town" back-to-back, you could also just state "Gilbert" for example

Unless you think this seriously detracts from the quality of the prose, I'd prefer to keep this as-is so that the article maintains consistent naming conventions for the litigants. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Justice Alito's concurring opinion

• Couldn't you say "wrote his separate concurring opinion" rather than the current use of "a"?

In legal scholarship, it is common to state that "Justice Appleseed wrote a concurring opinion" or "Justice Washington wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment." Unless you think this seriously detracts from the quality of the prose, I'd prefer to keep this as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Justice Breyer's opinion concurring in the judgement

• Same case here; couldn't you say "wrote his opinion" rather than the current use of "an"?

See my reply above. This is a common linguistic convention in legal scholarship. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Justice Kagan's opinion concurring in the judgement

• Same thing as mentioned in the previous two examples

See my replies above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Analysis and Commentary

• De-capitalize "commentary" please

Done. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• The last sentence in this section is rather long, could you reword it please?

I split the sentence in two, per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links

• You could place the audio sample within the article where it would be best placed, rather than at the end of the article where it is less likely to be seen by the casual reader

Per WP:EL, external links should not normally be placed in the body of an article". Because the link directs readers outside of Wikipedia, I think we should keep this in the external links section. However, I agree that it would nice for more readers to find the link (though I should also note that there is a link to the Oyez project recording of the oral arguments in the infobox). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

End of GA Review:

I previously stated in my review for "Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000" that that particular article was the best one I have ever read completely on Wikipedia. However, I have now changed my mind, in favor for this one. This article is brilliantly written, and is fully complete. Thank you for your contributions to this article! I will put the article on hold for seven days to allow for any changes to be made to it. Happy editing; cheers! Carbrera (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: Many thanks for your kind words about the article and for your thorough review. I very much appreciate your eye for detail. I'll start working on improvements later today, and I'll be sure to let you know when I am finished. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: I think I have addressed all your points above. Please let me know if there is anything else that should be done with this article. Thanks again for your thorough review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for explaning the "his/her" issue in the "concurring" statements; I am unaware of sentence structures regarding this. I have reread the article accordingly and have passed the article. Thank you for your hard work! Best regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC).