 | United States constitutional criminal procedure 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 2, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that much of the
United States Bill of Rights is devoted to
criminal procedure? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What about all the case law, such as Miranda v. Arizona and Chambers v. Florida which implemented Miranda warning, and many. many other cases that changed US criminal procedure nationwide? MathewTownsend ( talk) 02:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Miranda, Massiah, the Fourth Amendment, etc. are about criminal investigations, i.e. cops and robbers. This article is about criminal procedure, i.e. legal proceedings. This distinction makes much conceptual sense (the former constitutional provisions regulate law enforcement officers; the latter regulate lawyers: judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys), and in fact most law schools teach criminal investigations and criminal procedure as separate courses. Savidan 05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That is. if the article is to be correct. I added the link to the article Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Grand_jury. Grand jury is not capitalized by legal writers and shouldn't be for the general reader. MathewTownsend ( talk) 05:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if it is a reference to the Grand Jury Clause, it probably should be capitalized. In this instance it's a proper noun.
Lord Roem (
talk) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- ok. MathewTownsend ( talk) 05:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be the weird guy adding immigration related counsel issues but... Should any discussion of In re Lozada (which I plan on writing shortly) and the mess that has followed it be made? Essentially the oddity is that while you have no right to appointed counsel in deportation hearings you do have a right under Lozada (now upheld by Eric Holder, though briefly struck down by Michael Mukasey) to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Staxringold talk contribs 17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This article is only about cases that are both (1) constitutional and (2) criminal. While I am not familiar with Lozada, it is not criminal and may not be constitutional. I have no problem pointing out the unavailability of the Sixth Amendment right in civil proceedings, as I think it clarifies the contour of the right, but otherwise this is not the article for deportation procedure. As such, I doubt Lozada is based on the Sixth Amendment; more likely, it just analogizes to Sixth Amendment IAC, and is based on Fifth Amendment due process or sub-constitutional law (although I could be wrong; again, I have not read it).
Savidan 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly it does relate to 5th amendment due process, but the complaints over it stem from the fact that no 6th amendment right exists (and without that, according to Mukasey at least) you can't make a connection that puts the government at fault to make there be a Constitutional issue at all. Regardless, your position makes sense, thanks! Staxringold talk contribs 20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Connolly15 ( talk · contribs) 14:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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); [2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
 Undetermined
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
|
Undetermined |
The reviewer has no notes here. |
Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.
Additional Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Review Pending
As this is the longest un-reviewed article, I am tagging this for review. It will take me several hours to review the material. Expect a detailed analysis by May 7 or May 8. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've examined the references and found that they link to other (many red linked) cases of which themselves would contain the material for the reference. I do not believe that is acceptable, especially considering the volume of the cases and the length of each one. For Herring v New York I was expecting something like a link to the actual summary judgement which points to a specific section or decision. Such as this. [1] Where the first line summarizes the content, "A total denial of the opportunity for final summation in a nonjury criminal trial as well as in a jury trial deprives the accused of the basic right to make his defense..."
Without links to verifiable material I cannot pass this, most readers want a link to the citation or something material which allows independent checking of that matter. Here is where I essentially have a problem, the case (as a whole) is listed where they have to be independently searched out and some have dozens of pages of material without a page or a section noted. Such as: [2] That being said, most of these are verifiable with simple searches. Could you please respond to this matter, as for references this seems to be allowable, but given the existence of so many easily verifiable online references (usually copy and pasting the case into Google), if proper relevant texts can be accessed? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- The wikilinks are for the convenience of the reader if they choose to follow them. In the case of redlinks, their use is to (1) indicate whether or not Wikipedia has an article about that case; or (2) become useful as soon as such an article is created. I've never seen a Supreme Court case determined non-notable at AfD, and new articles about Supreme Court cases are created every day, so the redlinks themselves should not be a problem.
- As for verification, the source cited is the the United States Reports, not some website. Offline sources are accepted routinely and universally on Wikipedia, and there is no requirement that each reference contain an external link to the exact line of text referred to. Other editors are more enamored with Justia (and similar sites) than I am. Rather than list its many infirmities here (for example, the fact that there are now hundreds of thousands of broken links to Justia on Wikipedia because of the regularity with which they change their url system), I simply note that there is no policy requiring each case citation in a reference to contain an external link, and that it should be at the discretion of the main author whether to do so. These sites are free as in "free beer," not freedom. We owe them nothing. Savidan 15:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting they don't exist because they aren't notable, just that they haven't been created and interwiki sourcing is frowned upon, but for the sake of technical matters regarding sources changing URL types often enough to warrant simply citing the case is no problem. I'll spend some time cross checking the facts and the sources, I've done a few and found no reason to doubt the paraphrasing of the article thus far. It seems the last reviewer to do this disappeared on you, its been waiting for such a long time and I want to have a clearer picture of the situation.
- I've also noted some of the images being used in the article are involved in a legal dispute, the photos of the paintings, a separate matter for which make me a tad uneasy on a GA article review. While under USA law they are fine, the on going dispute (several years so far) is of concern to me. While I address the other issues, is there a better substitute or option for the King George III painting and Walter Raleigh? I might ask for a second opinion if you don't want to switch them over, because they are appropriately tagged, but ongoing legal disputes are a concern for this reviewer. 6.A of the GA criteria states, "(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;" and while it doesn't detail legal disputes, I do have reservations as to whether or not it is a factor. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that interwiki sourcing is a cardinal sin, and this article does not commit it. The source is the official report of the decision in the U.S. Reports. The interwiki link is no different than any other situation where Wikipedia has (or could someday have) an article about the source being cited (ditto for an article about the author of a source).
- As for the images, could you be more specific? I am aware of no reason why any of the images would not be regarded as in the public domain in the US (which is the only jurisdiction Wikipedia follows for this purpose). If you are referring to the George III image, the tags on it make clear that the image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia (and Commons, which is even stricter); they are only there to warn people who might republished in other jurisdictions. Savidan 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, no worries. I didn't realize that trying to pin decent references would be defeated by shifting of URLs which would break them all again. They are fine, just don't want other people to ask the same question later and I have no response or reason for not having URL sources when they were so easy. The image matter has this tag, "While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof." While the stance is, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs."
- For that concern (mainly for those who would use this article in the UK), I had some reservations. Given the stance I do not believe those two images should prevent it from GA, but I like second opinions. The whole dispute is over the picture of a public domain work being copyrighted, the work itself is not, but the dispute is over the picture being copyrighted. The matter concerns all of the works in the National Portrait Gallery it seems. More on it here.
[3] Its the only reason why I am asking if a substitution is preferable to you or if I should ask the relevant board for their opinion on the matter.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk) 19:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am familiar with the NPG situation. I do not prefer to substitute. The Foundation and community have taken the position that the images are OK, and that is good enough for me.
Savidan 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then its good enough for me to! I will begin analyzing the content in the coming hours. Still expect a detailed review tomorrow or Tuesday. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 19:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am familiar with the NPG situation. I do not prefer to substitute. The Foundation and community have taken the position that the images are OK, and that is good enough for me.
Savidan 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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); [2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | Clear and concise. |
Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | No concerns. |
Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | No concerns. |
Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | All are easily obtainable even without direct links to the cases, as previously noted, the breaking of any urls occur too frequently and are easily obtainable elsewhere as public documents. |
Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | Good paraphrasing, sticks to material, no original research. |
Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Covers it well. |
Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | Goes into detail with relevant cases. |
Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Yes, adequately reflects the historical rulings. |
Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| No edit wars. |
Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Yes. The issue noted above is not a GA affecting matter. |
Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | No problems. |
Pass
|
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
|
Pass |
A very good, and clean article! |
Discussion
This is a good article! I know I moved ahead with some concerns, but with those concerns dispelled I will pass this now!
Additional Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- GA-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- GA-Class United States Government articles
- High-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class United States Constitution articles
- High-importance United States Constitution articles
- Unknown-subject United States Constitution articles
|
| United States constitutional criminal procedure 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
| A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 2, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that much of the
United States Bill of Rights is devoted to
criminal procedure? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What about all the case law, such as Miranda v. Arizona and Chambers v. Florida which implemented Miranda warning, and many. many other cases that changed US criminal procedure nationwide? MathewTownsend ( talk) 02:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Miranda, Massiah, the Fourth Amendment, etc. are about criminal investigations, i.e. cops and robbers. This article is about criminal procedure, i.e. legal proceedings. This distinction makes much conceptual sense (the former constitutional provisions regulate law enforcement officers; the latter regulate lawyers: judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys), and in fact most law schools teach criminal investigations and criminal procedure as separate courses. Savidan 05:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That is. if the article is to be correct. I added the link to the article Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Grand_jury. Grand jury is not capitalized by legal writers and shouldn't be for the general reader. MathewTownsend ( talk) 05:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if it is a reference to the Grand Jury Clause, it probably should be capitalized. In this instance it's a proper noun.
Lord Roem (
talk) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- ok. MathewTownsend ( talk) 05:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be the weird guy adding immigration related counsel issues but... Should any discussion of In re Lozada (which I plan on writing shortly) and the mess that has followed it be made? Essentially the oddity is that while you have no right to appointed counsel in deportation hearings you do have a right under Lozada (now upheld by Eric Holder, though briefly struck down by Michael Mukasey) to claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Staxringold talk contribs 17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This article is only about cases that are both (1) constitutional and (2) criminal. While I am not familiar with Lozada, it is not criminal and may not be constitutional. I have no problem pointing out the unavailability of the Sixth Amendment right in civil proceedings, as I think it clarifies the contour of the right, but otherwise this is not the article for deportation procedure. As such, I doubt Lozada is based on the Sixth Amendment; more likely, it just analogizes to Sixth Amendment IAC, and is based on Fifth Amendment due process or sub-constitutional law (although I could be wrong; again, I have not read it).
Savidan 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly it does relate to 5th amendment due process, but the complaints over it stem from the fact that no 6th amendment right exists (and without that, according to Mukasey at least) you can't make a connection that puts the government at fault to make there be a Constitutional issue at all. Regardless, your position makes sense, thanks! Staxringold talk contribs 20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Connolly15 ( talk · contribs) 14:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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); [2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The reviewer has no notes here. |
Undetermined
|
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
|
Undetermined |
The reviewer has no notes here. |
Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.
Additional Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:United States constitutional criminal procedure/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Review Pending
As this is the longest un-reviewed article, I am tagging this for review. It will take me several hours to review the material. Expect a detailed analysis by May 7 or May 8. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've examined the references and found that they link to other (many red linked) cases of which themselves would contain the material for the reference. I do not believe that is acceptable, especially considering the volume of the cases and the length of each one. For Herring v New York I was expecting something like a link to the actual summary judgement which points to a specific section or decision. Such as this. [1] Where the first line summarizes the content, "A total denial of the opportunity for final summation in a nonjury criminal trial as well as in a jury trial deprives the accused of the basic right to make his defense..."
Without links to verifiable material I cannot pass this, most readers want a link to the citation or something material which allows independent checking of that matter. Here is where I essentially have a problem, the case (as a whole) is listed where they have to be independently searched out and some have dozens of pages of material without a page or a section noted. Such as: [2] That being said, most of these are verifiable with simple searches. Could you please respond to this matter, as for references this seems to be allowable, but given the existence of so many easily verifiable online references (usually copy and pasting the case into Google), if proper relevant texts can be accessed? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- The wikilinks are for the convenience of the reader if they choose to follow them. In the case of redlinks, their use is to (1) indicate whether or not Wikipedia has an article about that case; or (2) become useful as soon as such an article is created. I've never seen a Supreme Court case determined non-notable at AfD, and new articles about Supreme Court cases are created every day, so the redlinks themselves should not be a problem.
- As for verification, the source cited is the the United States Reports, not some website. Offline sources are accepted routinely and universally on Wikipedia, and there is no requirement that each reference contain an external link to the exact line of text referred to. Other editors are more enamored with Justia (and similar sites) than I am. Rather than list its many infirmities here (for example, the fact that there are now hundreds of thousands of broken links to Justia on Wikipedia because of the regularity with which they change their url system), I simply note that there is no policy requiring each case citation in a reference to contain an external link, and that it should be at the discretion of the main author whether to do so. These sites are free as in "free beer," not freedom. We owe them nothing. Savidan 15:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting they don't exist because they aren't notable, just that they haven't been created and interwiki sourcing is frowned upon, but for the sake of technical matters regarding sources changing URL types often enough to warrant simply citing the case is no problem. I'll spend some time cross checking the facts and the sources, I've done a few and found no reason to doubt the paraphrasing of the article thus far. It seems the last reviewer to do this disappeared on you, its been waiting for such a long time and I want to have a clearer picture of the situation.
- I've also noted some of the images being used in the article are involved in a legal dispute, the photos of the paintings, a separate matter for which make me a tad uneasy on a GA article review. While under USA law they are fine, the on going dispute (several years so far) is of concern to me. While I address the other issues, is there a better substitute or option for the King George III painting and Walter Raleigh? I might ask for a second opinion if you don't want to switch them over, because they are appropriately tagged, but ongoing legal disputes are a concern for this reviewer. 6.A of the GA criteria states, "(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;" and while it doesn't detail legal disputes, I do have reservations as to whether or not it is a factor. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that interwiki sourcing is a cardinal sin, and this article does not commit it. The source is the official report of the decision in the U.S. Reports. The interwiki link is no different than any other situation where Wikipedia has (or could someday have) an article about the source being cited (ditto for an article about the author of a source).
- As for the images, could you be more specific? I am aware of no reason why any of the images would not be regarded as in the public domain in the US (which is the only jurisdiction Wikipedia follows for this purpose). If you are referring to the George III image, the tags on it make clear that the image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia (and Commons, which is even stricter); they are only there to warn people who might republished in other jurisdictions. Savidan 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, no worries. I didn't realize that trying to pin decent references would be defeated by shifting of URLs which would break them all again. They are fine, just don't want other people to ask the same question later and I have no response or reason for not having URL sources when they were so easy. The image matter has this tag, "While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof." While the stance is, "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. Please be aware that depending on local laws, re-use of this content may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs."
- For that concern (mainly for those who would use this article in the UK), I had some reservations. Given the stance I do not believe those two images should prevent it from GA, but I like second opinions. The whole dispute is over the picture of a public domain work being copyrighted, the work itself is not, but the dispute is over the picture being copyrighted. The matter concerns all of the works in the National Portrait Gallery it seems. More on it here.
[3] Its the only reason why I am asking if a substitution is preferable to you or if I should ask the relevant board for their opinion on the matter.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk) 19:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am familiar with the NPG situation. I do not prefer to substitute. The Foundation and community have taken the position that the images are OK, and that is good enough for me.
Savidan 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then its good enough for me to! I will begin analyzing the content in the coming hours. Still expect a detailed review tomorrow or Tuesday. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 19:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am familiar with the NPG situation. I do not prefer to substitute. The Foundation and community have taken the position that the images are OK, and that is good enough for me.
Savidan 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. [1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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); [2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. [6]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | Clear and concise. |
Pass
|
| (b) (MoS) | No concerns. |
Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | No concerns. |
Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | All are easily obtainable even without direct links to the cases, as previously noted, the breaking of any urls occur too frequently and are easily obtainable elsewhere as public documents. |
Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | Good paraphrasing, sticks to material, no original research. |
Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Covers it well. |
Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | Goes into detail with relevant cases. |
Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Yes, adequately reflects the historical rulings. |
Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| No edit wars. |
Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Yes. The issue noted above is not a GA affecting matter. |
Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | No problems. |
Pass
|
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
|
Pass |
A very good, and clean article! |
Discussion
This is a good article! I know I moved ahead with some concerns, but with those concerns dispelled I will pass this now!
Additional Notes
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- GA-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- GA-Class United States Government articles
- High-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class United States Constitution articles
- High-importance United States Constitution articles
- Unknown-subject United States Constitution articles