Abramski v. United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can user talk page, or consider visiting the
Teahouse. , contact the responding user(s) directly on their
|
I would like to upload the image found in the following link, however I was not able to draw a final conclusion to whether this is allowed under fair use from WP:IUP.
Thanks. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, my first complete article. Any feedback is welcome. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AHeneen ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm claiming this review. I will find time within the next two days to finish the review.
AHeneen (
talk) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ WannaBeEditor: I will (hopefully) have time to completely review this on Saturday. One thing that prevents this from being promoted is the citation style:
It's not clear what citation style this article is using. AHeneen ( talk) 20:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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. | The prose is decent enough that it doesn't prevent promotion to GA | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead does not adequately summarize the entire article. See MOS:LEAD. | |
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. | See comments above this table. There's one bare URL and I can't tell what citation style this article uses | |
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). | No very biased sources are used in this article. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No apparent OR, but the "Previous Litigation" section has no inline citations and a few statements in the "Factual Background" section have no inline citations. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No apparent copyright violations using the Copyvio detector. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It covers the background law, case history, SCOTUS opinion & dissent, and reactions to the decision. That covers the main aspects | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article at no point goes into unnecessary/excessive details | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The only apparent neutrality issue that I see is using the term "one critic" in the end. Here, I think the critic should be named with why this person's opinion matters (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I think an appropriate way to identify the critic is to replace "One critic criticized the court's..." with " John Lott, a gun rights advocate, criticized the court's..." and "According to this critic, the court..." with "According to Lott, the court..." | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | There were a lot of additions after the GA nomination, but no edit wars. | |
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. | Not applicable. GA status does not require images. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Not applicable. GA status does not require images. | |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold. The problems are not hard to fix. AHeneen ( talk) 22:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for accepting the review. Here is what I have done:
@
WannaBeEditor: The only remaining issue with this article is that the lead does not adequately cover the entire article. It should include a sentence or two about both the dissent and the "Responses and analysis" sections. It also should mention just a little more about the "Factual background" of the case. You didn't respond above under my comment about the lead, so I was waiting for you to fix it...but since it's been a couple days without any edit, I just thought I should remind you in case you forgot.
AHeneen (
talk) 15:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry @ WannaBeEditor:, I see that you haven't edited since the above comment. I hope you are OK. It has been two weeks, so it is time to close the nomination. You can renominate it later. If you do, leave a message on my talk page and I may do the review. AHeneen ( talk) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree:, @ AHeneen:, one of you still around? Can you accept the review? Sorry about last time, just couldn't get to it in time. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 05:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think Kagan's authorship of the majority opinion and how the Justices voted should be integrated into the body of the article, not just the infobox. Knope7 ( talk) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Notecardforfree ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
First and foremost, I want to apologize for not getting to this review sooner. My work has been incredibly busy this last month, but thankfully I had some free time this weekend. I think this article is very close to passing the Good Article Criteria. Please see below for items that need to be addressed before this article can be promoted.
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - I removed all or maybe most of the duplicate wikilinks. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 07:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Done - Removed and rephrased all the "helds" in the dissent. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done WannaBeEditor ( talk) 00:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done pointed to page 2276 as well. No point arguing this one out . . . WannaBeEditor ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done I removed it. Though it is pretty much self evident from the article I guess its considered original research. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done I didn't pipe the links previously because it's not the blue book style per se, but I did now per your recommendation. I also applied the small caps where it was necessary. I didn't scrutinize thoroughly every citation, because I think I was relatively careful to include whatever possible and in the right format when first citing. Please point out if I made any mistakes. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 01:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 05:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - I just added Brady Center's brief as a counter balance, I don't think an expanded discussion is really necessary. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these points. I will place this review on hold until the issues are resolved, but most of these are rather minor issues and I am confident that it won't take too much time to resolve them. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@ WannaBeEditor: you may have already received a notification on your watchlist, but I am giving you a courtesy ping to let you know this review is underway. I should also mention that my comments should not be construed as criticism of the incredible work you have done to write this article; you have clearly put a lot of hard work and many hours of research into this, and I commend your efforts. Wikipedia is certainly in need of editors who cover legal topics, and I hope you keep up the good work! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Notecardforfree, WannaBeEditor, where does this nomination/review stand? As far as I can tell, the last work done to the article and to this review page were both on October 5, 2016, over three weeks ago. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree and WannaBeEditor: has there been any progress on this nomination? Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
WannaBeEditor, you have done fantastic work with this article! I am pleased to announce that it satisfies all GA criteria, and I am going to go ahead and close this as a passing review. Thank you very much for your strong work, and I look forward to reading more of your contributions in the future. All the best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Abramski v. United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can user talk page, or consider visiting the
Teahouse. , contact the responding user(s) directly on their
|
I would like to upload the image found in the following link, however I was not able to draw a final conclusion to whether this is allowed under fair use from WP:IUP.
Thanks. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, my first complete article. Any feedback is welcome. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AHeneen ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm claiming this review. I will find time within the next two days to finish the review.
AHeneen (
talk) 09:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ WannaBeEditor: I will (hopefully) have time to completely review this on Saturday. One thing that prevents this from being promoted is the citation style:
It's not clear what citation style this article is using. AHeneen ( talk) 20:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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. | The prose is decent enough that it doesn't prevent promotion to GA | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead does not adequately summarize the entire article. See MOS:LEAD. | |
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. | See comments above this table. There's one bare URL and I can't tell what citation style this article uses | |
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). | No very biased sources are used in this article. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No apparent OR, but the "Previous Litigation" section has no inline citations and a few statements in the "Factual Background" section have no inline citations. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No apparent copyright violations using the Copyvio detector. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It covers the background law, case history, SCOTUS opinion & dissent, and reactions to the decision. That covers the main aspects | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article at no point goes into unnecessary/excessive details | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The only apparent neutrality issue that I see is using the term "one critic" in the end. Here, I think the critic should be named with why this person's opinion matters (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). I think an appropriate way to identify the critic is to replace "One critic criticized the court's..." with " John Lott, a gun rights advocate, criticized the court's..." and "According to this critic, the court..." with "According to Lott, the court..." | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | There were a lot of additions after the GA nomination, but no edit wars. | |
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. | Not applicable. GA status does not require images. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Not applicable. GA status does not require images. | |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold. The problems are not hard to fix. AHeneen ( talk) 22:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for accepting the review. Here is what I have done:
@
WannaBeEditor: The only remaining issue with this article is that the lead does not adequately cover the entire article. It should include a sentence or two about both the dissent and the "Responses and analysis" sections. It also should mention just a little more about the "Factual background" of the case. You didn't respond above under my comment about the lead, so I was waiting for you to fix it...but since it's been a couple days without any edit, I just thought I should remind you in case you forgot.
AHeneen (
talk) 15:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry @ WannaBeEditor:, I see that you haven't edited since the above comment. I hope you are OK. It has been two weeks, so it is time to close the nomination. You can renominate it later. If you do, leave a message on my talk page and I may do the review. AHeneen ( talk) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree:, @ AHeneen:, one of you still around? Can you accept the review? Sorry about last time, just couldn't get to it in time. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 05:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think Kagan's authorship of the majority opinion and how the Justices voted should be integrated into the body of the article, not just the infobox. Knope7 ( talk) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Notecardforfree ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
First and foremost, I want to apologize for not getting to this review sooner. My work has been incredibly busy this last month, but thankfully I had some free time this weekend. I think this article is very close to passing the Good Article Criteria. Please see below for items that need to be addressed before this article can be promoted.
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - I removed all or maybe most of the duplicate wikilinks. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 07:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Done - Removed and rephrased all the "helds" in the dissent. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 22:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Done WannaBeEditor ( talk) 00:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done pointed to page 2276 as well. No point arguing this one out . . . WannaBeEditor ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done I removed it. Though it is pretty much self evident from the article I guess its considered original research. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Done I didn't pipe the links previously because it's not the blue book style per se, but I did now per your recommendation. I also applied the small caps where it was necessary. I didn't scrutinize thoroughly every citation, because I think I was relatively careful to include whatever possible and in the right format when first citing. Please point out if I made any mistakes. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 01:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 05:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - I just added Brady Center's brief as a counter balance, I don't think an expanded discussion is really necessary. WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Done - WannaBeEditor ( talk) 02:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these points. I will place this review on hold until the issues are resolved, but most of these are rather minor issues and I am confident that it won't take too much time to resolve them. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@ WannaBeEditor: you may have already received a notification on your watchlist, but I am giving you a courtesy ping to let you know this review is underway. I should also mention that my comments should not be construed as criticism of the incredible work you have done to write this article; you have clearly put a lot of hard work and many hours of research into this, and I commend your efforts. Wikipedia is certainly in need of editors who cover legal topics, and I hope you keep up the good work! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Notecardforfree, WannaBeEditor, where does this nomination/review stand? As far as I can tell, the last work done to the article and to this review page were both on October 5, 2016, over three weeks ago. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree and WannaBeEditor: has there been any progress on this nomination? Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
WannaBeEditor, you have done fantastic work with this article! I am pleased to announce that it satisfies all GA criteria, and I am going to go ahead and close this as a passing review. Thank you very much for your strong work, and I look forward to reading more of your contributions in the future. All the best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)