Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Sailing to Byzantium

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.	It's close, but it has one problem with technical terms, mentioned below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Problems are identified below.
	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.	The formatting could be improved
	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).	Citations are really excellent.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problem
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Expansion needed in a few places.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	One or two minor concerns, below.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	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.	No problems.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Placement and captions are great.
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not meet the GA criteria at this time.

Overall comments

This is an interesting article about an important topic, and it has many strengths (like thoroughness and sourcing). I am a very thorough reviewer (some might say nit-picky), so I have identified many issues below. Please don't be discouraged. When I see that an article has "Featured" potential, I push hard to make it as good as possible, and I am willing to work with nominators to improve the article, and I'm also capable of compromise.

The biggest issues

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lead section should summarize all sections of the article. The lead section here seems to summarize the decision, but not other parts of the article. Material from "Background", "Dissent", and "Subsequent developments" should be summarized in the lead. Since the lead should not containing any information not found elsewhere in the article, there is no need for citations in the lead. Instead, the same information should be cited where it appears in the body.

• Rewrote the lead and removed citations. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The first section of "Subsequent developments" contains only criticism of the decision. Should this be given a subheading of "Response" or "Criticism" or "Controversy"? You quote two legal experts who disagree with the opinion, and their comments are notable... but are there any notable comments (from reliable sources) of experts agreeing with the decision? This could be a bias problem.

• I have tried quite hard to find publications that support the decision. I managed to find one that supported it on procedural grounds but I have not been able to find anything else. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article is a little short, and I believe more relevant material could be added. The oral arguments were revealing, and I think some material from that would be useful. And this FindLaw summary gives many details which would be useful to the reader, but which are not in the article (related background law, "Police also knew that Alvarado was a minor", Costock said she "needed" to speak to Alvarado, not that she "wished" to, legal aspects of being a minor, etc.)

• Added a section summarizing the oral arguments. Added background about AEDPA and Miranda custody analysis to the background section. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Other questions and issues

• This article refers to the case as "No. 02-1684", linking to Case citation. Some FAs and GAs on SCOTUS cases link to United States Reports instead, and some appear in the format of "123 U.S. 456". Which link is preferable in this case, and which format?

• US Reports is preferred, nice catch! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The language of the first sentence seems odd to me, stilted and potentially biased. (Pretty much the same sentence is listed under "Holding" in the infobox.) Is this a direct quote from some official summary? If so, it should be sourced. If not, it seems like it could be reworded to be as NPOV as possible. For instance, "held that a state court considered the proper factors and reached a reasonable conclusion" is windy and a little confusing, and could be misinterpreted to mean that "reasonable" applies to the SCOTUS decision. I think it would be better as "upheld a state court decision that", if that is as accurate. Also, saying "despite the fact" could come across as rebutting the conclusion. I admit, I'm not overly familiar with language used to describe SCOTUS holdings, and accuracy is most important. Could you either change the wording, or clarify why you think it's appropriate?
  • The word "reasonable" actually refers to the legal standard used in this case. The Court will only grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus if the state court's decision was objectively unreasonable. I recently changed the language to say that the Court declined to overturn the state court, but even that is not quite right. The Court decided that the state court's decision was not objectively unreasonable and thus declined to grant a writ of habeas corpus. I'm working on making the article more precise. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• A "See also" section should not list articles already linked to in the body of the article. I don't think the section is needed here.

• Added some additional relevant links. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The "J.D.B. v. North Carolina" section uses Wikipedia:Summary style, but summarizes the decision in two sentences. I think more information about that case would be relevant here, and the section could be expanded.

• Expanded the summary. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The lead mentions many topics which the reader many not be adequately familiar with, and should be linked, such as Miranda warning, Minor (law), and second-degree murder. Throughout the article, technical terms are sometimes used without a wikilink or explanation (such as "Discretionary review" or "suppress his statements".)

• Added wikilinks to lead and article. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Since Miranda warnings are central in this case, they should be briefly described or defined in the "Crime and investigation" section.

• Addressed in the crime and investigation section. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your referencing is very thorough! But I think the format could be improved. You should consider having separate "Notes" and "References" sections. Footnotes could go in Notes, with brief reference format (e.g. "Alvarado v. Hickman") and the page numbers and/or relevant quote. A full reference (including full title, link, last-accessed, etc.) can go in the References section, each listed a single time. This would eliminate duplicate information, help people find sources quickly, and lead to a cleaner look. See Augmentative and alternative communication for an example.
  • I really like this reference formatting. Updated the article per suggestion. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• There are, unfortunately, a few problems with the images of justices. Both images are tagged as public domain, claiming that they were created by U.S. government employees, but that doesn't seem to be correct. See this link for discussion about the two photos.
  • Added a new image of Justice Kennedy. Per the upload log, the new image is a derivative of this image (which has been verified). Per the discussion you linked to, the image of Justice Breyer appears to be ok. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Updates from Nominator

• Really excited to tackle the suggestions mentioned above. Currently in the middle of a move right now, but I will revise the article on August 7th-9th. Hopefully that is acceptable as the reviewer mentioned the hold would last 7 days. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 18:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Although this article is well on its way to attaining GA status, the issues were not resolved in the time that the review was open, so the nomination has failed. If you later resolve these issues, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently working on improving the article, per Quadell's suggestions. After I'm done, I will renominate for GA status! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)