Wikipedia:Peer review/Bush v. Gore/archive1

Bush v. Gore edit

Seems like an issue of some importance or interest (at least in America). I'd like to know what I can help improve. SilverStar_talk 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mix of citation styles, some are inline, some are just external links - they should be standardised. There are no citations in the "Issue" (or anywhere in the second half of the article) section but some sentences really need them, such as:

The court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve the case
The court, especially the majority, had trouble with the timing

and also the specific quotations in the text. While these are (probably) true, they do need to be cited.

Also, there aren't images anywhere in the article - it would be good to break up the text somehow. Trebor 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've refactored all the citations into endnote style. I also went through the specific quotations, and summary of criticism and praise in the Decision section and sourced it all. I'll look for some pictures, but I'm not sure what would be appropriate, and find citations for the Issue section. -- SilverStar_talk 05:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, it's looking better. Pictures for court cases are hard - if you can't find anything better, maybe add in a photo of some of the people involved (like in Lawrence v. Texas). Trebor 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a picture of the SCOTUS at the time of the case, and a timeline of prior events. There's also PD images for Bush's counsel, but I'm not adding it until I can find one for Gore's counsel also for NPOV. -- SilverStar_talk 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. For the citations, the date the websites were accessed should either not be linked, or be linked twice: one for the day and month, one for the year (e.g. January 1, 2000). It just prevents a lot of needless redlinks at the bottom of the page. Trebor 15:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I unlinked the dates. And I've sourced all the relevant law, issues, and claims now. Content-wise, I need to still add the details of each opinion, concurrence, and dissent (although they are already summarized) and find some images. Any other suggestions? -- SilverStar_talk 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add this: Bush v. Gore had a previous featured article candidacy that was rejected: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bush v. Gore/archive1. The objections stated have been either (a) covered above or (b) fixed before I posted the PR. -- SilverStar_talk 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, read through the whole article again to see what I could pick up on.

were only the Due Process Clause, which ensures that: - did you mean to/are you going to finish that?
It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis principle. - a bit weasally, it could do with sources.
The end is still looking a bit odd. I changed some of the names to fit in better with WP:LAYOUT. I'm not sure what the "Criteria for Late Filing" section is really doing there, "see also" has only one link and "external links" doesn't exist yet. I'll try to help a bit, if I can. Trebor 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, part of the problem is the "full criteria" doesn't link properly from the body of the text. I'm not sure how to correct this. Trebor 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on this on the Talk page recently. This article is incorrect in calling the decision a 7-2 decision. It was 5-4, and only 5-4. All four dissents were dissents only, not concurring in part in the per curium opinion. It is usually Bush partisans who try to push this POV, which started the night of the decision after lay media tried to figure out the decision and picked up on the line toward the end of the majority opinion about "seven justices of this court agree that there is a........but we disagree on the remedy." People who understand how SCt opinions are written looked at it and saw that it was 5-4, but it was too late to stop this theme from being pushed by those who want to lend greater credibility to the Bush position and outcome. To call it, even in part, a 7-2 opinion or 7-2 decision is a misreading or misrepresentation. Frankly, the repeated overemphasis of this incorrect idea in the article, even in a graph, makes me seriously question the writer's POV (I almost expected the last sentance to read: "Did I mention it was 7-2?"). I would propose to edit it.-JLSWiki 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Please ignore the stricken sentance. I went too far. I apologize. I have no idea why this was written this way, and will assume the writer's good faith. (Thanks to the wiser and more experienced Wikipedians who are pointing this newcomer the way.)-JLSWiki 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]