Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It is exceptionally well written. In the lead, the absence of a reference to Jus soli was surprising. The term occurs only once in the article in the dissent section. (was not linked, but I corrected that) As a foundational aspect of birthright citizenship, I think Jus soli should be mentioned in the lead. (fixed)

   It complies with the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases article outline nicely.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The article is well sourced with all major facts supported by reliable sources. The article does not rely too heavily on case law and briefs and used a variety of independent secondary sources to verify various elements of the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The background section appears to be lacking any discussion of the period between Wong Kim Ark's detention and the Supreme Court case. In other words, the answers to the question of what occured in the Federal Court system prior to the Supreme Court ruling is missing from the article. (fixed)

   The last paragraph in the Subsequent developments section would benefit by being broken out as a sub-section entitled something like Critics of Wong Kim Ark or Critics of birthright citizenship. Although adequately sourced as is, the phrase some critics... is a bit vague and the whole paragraph would be improved if the criticism was attributed to specific entities and the nature of the criticism on an entity by entity basis was made. At the conclusion of the paragraph, the last two sentences convey the notion that there have been legislative attempts to change the birthright citizenship concept. These ideas might be better conveyed by identifying specific attempts, the timeframe of the attempt and the entities supporting those attempts--especially attempts directly challenging Wong Kim Ark. (fixed)

   The creation of the Criticisms subsection is a big improvement and the specificity given to the opposition efforts is a significant contribution to the NPOV of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   With the exception of the last paragraph in the Subsequent developments section, all aspects of the article are NPOV. As stated above, the last paragraph could be improved with more specificity.

   More specificity and structure in the last paragraph in Subsequent developments has created a more balanced and neutral article in the whole.

5. It is stable.

   Since its creation in 2005, this article has not experienced any edit warring. Most recently (2010), the article history reveals minor disagreement over wording and phrasing but all were handled well through consensus building and very well written edit summaries.

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):

   Images in the article adequately relate to the subject, have suitable captions and are appropriately tagged with permissions.

7. Overall:

   PASS:

Reviewer: Mike Cline (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)