Jump to content

Talk:Trinsey v. Pennsylvania/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Monty845 (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The prose is generally of good quality, but I have noted a few places below where the prose is confusing.  Done
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead needs a bit of work to comply with WP:LEAD, the remaining MoS standards are met.  Done
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    There is a quotation missing a cite.  Done
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The Article is generally of good quality, none of the changes required to meet the GA criteria should be very hard to make.
    In my opinion, the article now passes all of the good article criteria. Monty845 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

[edit]

The following are my suggestions for improvement of the article, some of them are beyond the criteria for a good article, those that are are labeled as (not a GA issue) are strictly optional and represent my personal opinion/preference:

Lead

  • "...H. John Heinz III, the US Senator from Pennsylvania" - referring to him as "the" US Senator from Pennsylvania may confuse some readers. While in some circles it is customary to refer to senators that way, I think for a more general audience, it should be rephrased so that it is clear there isn't just one Senator from the state at a time. (not a GA issue, as its not really wrong)
    Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the Governor being delegated the authority to appoint a temporary replacement pending the special election, is needed in the lead only so far as the statute delegating the authority also contained the no primaries rule, could it be reworked to focus on the no primaries rule, while reducing the extra information? (Criteria 1 - WP:LEAD)
    Rephrased it; take a look? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That part of the rephrase looks good. Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...confirming this delegation." seems awkward, perhaps "making such a delegation" if the sentence stays? (not a GA issue)

Background

Judgment

Significance

  • Was there any evidence of lasting significance outside of the law review circuit? (not a GA issue)
    Not really, except for its role in interpreting the 17th Amendment.
  • This section refers to the "Court of Appeal", I think even when referring to a single court, it should be "Court of Appeals". (new issue) Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Please feel free to respond to individual points above. Monty845 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]