Talk:Toibb v. Radloff

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An encouraging start. However, I'm sorry to inform the editor(s) of this article that I cannot pass this article in its current state. However, there is really only one way from here - and that's up :) Some of the improvements that need to be made in heightening the quality of the article are below.

• Citations are needed where referring to other texts; such as the mention to a New York Times article - which article? When was it published? etc. It's also to avoid weasel words. Bankruptcy code should also be referenced - cite the legislation.
  • I shall hunt down the weasels and get rid of them. Bwrs (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The discussion section lacks any reference to law texts or of any commentary on this case - this is needed.
  • Your advice is well-taken. Bwrs (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Further, you mention the Bankruptcy Act has been amended many times? So what? How has it relevent? Does it further consolidate a point in this case or disagree on one entirely? Post-case developments, however recent, are a good thing too.
  • This is important. Acts of Congress are sometimes as easy to understand as the processes of cellular respiration or photosynthesis; I shall leave it for an expert to fix. Bwrs (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• It needs to be written well. There is a lot of jargon, and excessive use of quotations in the later parts of the article. What is this: 11 U.S.C. § 109(d) (1988)? And this: 124 Cong.Rec., at 32392, 32405? To the common reader, this is jibberish. It may be more relevent as a reference?
  • I have buried 11 U.S.C. § 109(d) in a reference. "124 Cong.Rec., at 32392, 32405" is actually part of a quotation; specifically, it is a reference inside a quotation. As for improving the article overall, your feedback is well-taken, and I shall be glad to collaborate with other editors on this 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC). I might add that improvement in clarity may be served by shortening the article; additional material can be added later. Bwrs (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The manner in which words are capitalized and so on also needs to stay consistent - eg; chapter vs Chapter.
  • I will fix this. Bwrs (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The lead section is very weak - it needs to also summarize the article.
  • I actually disagree; it summarizes the case quite well. Bwrs (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It needs to be a little more elaborate, like in the facts section, while the facts section needs to be more detailed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Despite the complexity of the bankruptcy law, the main point of the article is simple: that individuals can file for chapter 11. Any necessary elaboration is, or belongs, in the "overview" section. Bwrs (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This is an article - it needs to summarise the main points of the article, whether it's factually about the case or otherwise. And how it's studied in law school etc. If you're thinking that this is a mere case summary, then you're unlikely to find the article passing GA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I shall leave for somebody else to deal with how it's studied in law school. As for the other things, such as overall article quality and cleanup, I will agree there's plenty of work to do; I want to get the article at least into a position where an expert can easily push it to GA. Bwrs (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wikilinking should be consistent too - don't be too excessive in some areas. For example, in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section, bankruptcy is wikilinked thrice - once is enough for the word, and once for the mention to bankrupty court which is presumably for a different article. Some chapters have been wikilinked, some haven't - once per paragraph or per section of the article should be sufficient.
  • I shall modify this to make it more consistent. Bwrs (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, it's an encouraging effort, but there's also a lot of room for improvement before it becomes a Good Article. Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)