![]() | Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) 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. Review: November 11, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 May 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
02:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Tamzin ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC).
The case was noted forin the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2013 article lead, please change that per MOS:NOTED. ALT0 reads a little clumsy to me, and is also slightly above the max 200 characters. I prefer ALT1. The video is tagged as PD based on Florida statutes. User has one DYK credit, so this nom is exempt from QPQ review requirement. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MaxnaCarta ( talk · contribs) 09:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Tamzin:, nice to meet you. I actually was reading this case out of pure interest and observed it was a GA nominee. I am a practising lawyer in Australia and have reviewed one law related GA nom and have one GA myself. Just introducing myself as we have not previously communicated directly. Hopefully you feel I can do a good job reviewing your GA nom. I am a relaxed reviewer, I personally feel. I apply a rather broad interpretation to the GA criteria. I do not feel a GA article needs to be perfect but rather just...good! Having read your article, this is one that I think will easily pass. Just a few initial issues to discuss before I commence drafting the review template.
Please see issues. Let me know in the comment part if you believe this is a fair/accurate pickup. If so, please fix and let me know when done. If not, please tell me why it is not a good pickup and let's chat! Thanks and look forward to working with you. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 09:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:D
All of your comments so far seem reasonable, and I've replied to a few of the easy ones. I likewise look forward to working with you. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
10:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
the majority opinion in Lozman, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by seven other justices-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 13:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
With facts like these, supra; that appeared to be the correct way, in Bluebook, to indicate that I'm reusing a previously-cited source, but with a "citing..." not in the original. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 13:09, 10 November 2022 (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 clear, and easily understood by a wide audience. The prose exceeds the standards of GA criteria. The prose is highly engaging and is in my view, close or already to a professional standard. I would have phrased certain sentences differently, however my preferred method is not necessarily any better than what is existing. Spelling and grammar is excellent, I detected no typo's. Significant effort and skill have been invested into the prose. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article contains a useful, well written lead. The lead is concise, but complete in its summary of the topic. Further detail is expanded in later sections. No important facts are missing from the lead, and new facts not found in the remainder of the article are within the lead. All required MOS guidelines have been complied with, however I was not able to immediately detect any examples of non-core requirements being disregarded. Compliance with MOS is excellent. |
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. | Referencing was used correctly. Any issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
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). | A significant issue I faced in my first GA review (mine too was a legal case) was that I relied on the case citation itself as a citation. This was not the case here. The case was barely referenced, instead, sources of the highest quality were used. Journal articles and other scholarly commentary from peer-reviewed work was used. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | As above. The author has gone to great effort in citing all required sentences. Quality referencing is throughout. References 15, 18, 23, and 28 were checked and fine. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No issues detected. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This article is succinct. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Great length. More commentary may be needed, and further review of available literature before it can progress to FA/A review (if that is what you ever aim for) however few casual readers will be left wanting for additional detail. This article is complete without being verbose or straying off topic. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Presents the facts in a neutral way and discusses some literature without inappropriate synthesis of sources. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | So much stability. So few edit wars. Law articles tend to miss out on the drama, as has happened with this one. Contrarily to edit warring, the history shows a list of collaboration between editors. |
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. | Excellent use of media. The video footage is helpful. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good captions. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This article easily meets basic editorial standards. I feel this article is without question one satisfies GA criteria, and is well on its way, if not already there, to meeting A or FA criteria. Overall, this work is an example of a very good article, close to being one of the best I have come across in the Law Project. It is of high and reliable quality with outstanding style compliance. Appropriate media has been included. Perhaps for any future review, the article needs a little expansion. However that being said, I consider article relatively broad, and near complete in its coverage of relevant facts. |
@ MaxnaCarta: Regarding your comment transcluded above, removing the date from this title would imply it's primary over Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013), and I'm not sure that's the case. The 2018 case is higher-profile, but the 2013 is probably more impactful in the end, since it settled (for some value of "settled") a longstanding question in admiralty law, whereas the lasting impact of the 2018 case is essentially "being the one between Reichle and Nieves" and establishing an exception to Hartman that it remains unclear whether anyone will ever successfully invoke. (Tangentially, currently Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach is a set index article, and I've been thinking about expanding it [partly forking from Fane Lozman, which at this point is a bit overly focused on the cases] so that it's essentially a history of all litigation between the two parties.) -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 06:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) 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. Review: November 11, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 May 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
02:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Tamzin ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC).
The case was noted forin the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2013 article lead, please change that per MOS:NOTED. ALT0 reads a little clumsy to me, and is also slightly above the max 200 characters. I prefer ALT1. The video is tagged as PD based on Florida statutes. User has one DYK credit, so this nom is exempt from QPQ review requirement. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MaxnaCarta ( talk · contribs) 09:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Tamzin:, nice to meet you. I actually was reading this case out of pure interest and observed it was a GA nominee. I am a practising lawyer in Australia and have reviewed one law related GA nom and have one GA myself. Just introducing myself as we have not previously communicated directly. Hopefully you feel I can do a good job reviewing your GA nom. I am a relaxed reviewer, I personally feel. I apply a rather broad interpretation to the GA criteria. I do not feel a GA article needs to be perfect but rather just...good! Having read your article, this is one that I think will easily pass. Just a few initial issues to discuss before I commence drafting the review template.
Please see issues. Let me know in the comment part if you believe this is a fair/accurate pickup. If so, please fix and let me know when done. If not, please tell me why it is not a good pickup and let's chat! Thanks and look forward to working with you. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 09:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:D
All of your comments so far seem reasonable, and I've replied to a few of the easy ones. I likewise look forward to working with you. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
10:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
the majority opinion in Lozman, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by seven other justices-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 13:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
With facts like these, supra; that appeared to be the correct way, in Bluebook, to indicate that I'm reusing a previously-cited source, but with a "citing..." not in the original. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 13:09, 10 November 2022 (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 clear, and easily understood by a wide audience. The prose exceeds the standards of GA criteria. The prose is highly engaging and is in my view, close or already to a professional standard. I would have phrased certain sentences differently, however my preferred method is not necessarily any better than what is existing. Spelling and grammar is excellent, I detected no typo's. Significant effort and skill have been invested into the prose. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article contains a useful, well written lead. The lead is concise, but complete in its summary of the topic. Further detail is expanded in later sections. No important facts are missing from the lead, and new facts not found in the remainder of the article are within the lead. All required MOS guidelines have been complied with, however I was not able to immediately detect any examples of non-core requirements being disregarded. Compliance with MOS is excellent. |
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. | Referencing was used correctly. Any issues have been addressed. |
![]() |
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). | A significant issue I faced in my first GA review (mine too was a legal case) was that I relied on the case citation itself as a citation. This was not the case here. The case was barely referenced, instead, sources of the highest quality were used. Journal articles and other scholarly commentary from peer-reviewed work was used. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | As above. The author has gone to great effort in citing all required sentences. Quality referencing is throughout. References 15, 18, 23, and 28 were checked and fine. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No issues detected. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This article is succinct. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Great length. More commentary may be needed, and further review of available literature before it can progress to FA/A review (if that is what you ever aim for) however few casual readers will be left wanting for additional detail. This article is complete without being verbose or straying off topic. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Presents the facts in a neutral way and discusses some literature without inappropriate synthesis of sources. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | So much stability. So few edit wars. Law articles tend to miss out on the drama, as has happened with this one. Contrarily to edit warring, the history shows a list of collaboration between editors. |
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. | Excellent use of media. The video footage is helpful. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good captions. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | This article easily meets basic editorial standards. I feel this article is without question one satisfies GA criteria, and is well on its way, if not already there, to meeting A or FA criteria. Overall, this work is an example of a very good article, close to being one of the best I have come across in the Law Project. It is of high and reliable quality with outstanding style compliance. Appropriate media has been included. Perhaps for any future review, the article needs a little expansion. However that being said, I consider article relatively broad, and near complete in its coverage of relevant facts. |
@ MaxnaCarta: Regarding your comment transcluded above, removing the date from this title would imply it's primary over Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013), and I'm not sure that's the case. The 2018 case is higher-profile, but the 2013 is probably more impactful in the end, since it settled (for some value of "settled") a longstanding question in admiralty law, whereas the lasting impact of the 2018 case is essentially "being the one between Reichle and Nieves" and establishing an exception to Hartman that it remains unclear whether anyone will ever successfully invoke. (Tangentially, currently Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach is a set index article, and I've been thinking about expanding it [partly forking from Fane Lozman, which at this point is a bit overly focused on the cases] so that it's essentially a history of all litigation between the two parties.) -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 06:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)