Talk:Schmerber v. California/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 06:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I will be starting this review. GregJackP Boomer! 06:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Follows WP:SCOTUS/SG, MOS:LAW
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.	See comments.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very well written, covers the case very well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Ditto
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

• Not a GA requirement, but you need to be consistent on your refs, either end all with no period or end all with a period. See n.19 (Wolf).

• Done. I removed the period from n.19, though after looking at other SCOTUS GAs and FAs, it looks like most use periods at the end of citations, so I will likely go back at some point in the future and put periods at the end of all the references. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's better to use a period because sometimes you have multiple sentences in a long note. It would look strange if earlier sentences end with a period but the last one does not. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• PraeceptorIP, that's an excellent point, and I have already gone through the article to put periods at the end of every footnote. Also, thanks for adding the Bluebook template to the references section. Hopefully that will stop people from disrupting the citations! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Notecardforfree, unfortunately it won't stop bots. There is a bot that goes around sniffing articles for ANY non-Bluebook citation, such as one dropped in by an itinerant junk donor who happened to pass by and decided to insert something that popped into his mind, and the bot upon finding one tries to change every BB cite to the other format (which doesn't allow pinpoint cites). GregJackP and I tried to talk the bot owner into inserting some code in his bot that would tell it to let alone articles with a BB template (in the manner of robot.txt). But he wouldn't do it. (Sigh) PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not a GA requirement, you do not have to use a long cite for the first cite of a dissent, you can short cite it with a parenthetical.

• Done. All subsequent citations to a case are now short citations. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not a GA requirement, when using {{main}}, you need to summarize the article you are linking to in the template. Sometimes it is better to use {{See also}}, which does not need a summarized paragraph in the current article.

• Done. I changed all three {{main}} tags to {{See also}}. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Might I recommend that you request a GOCE review, a peer review, and that you take it to FA? Outstanding article that I'm pleased to pass. GregJackP Boomer! 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your kind words -- Hopefully I will be able to take this to FA status one day! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)