| Revision as of 23:34, 18 October 2024 editZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,375 edits Additional thoughts← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:15, 19 October 2024 edit undoGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,867 edits →Berghuis v. Thompkins: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. ] (]) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | ::Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. ] (]) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in ]: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. ] (]) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | :::In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in ]: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. ] (]) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{Ping|White whirlwind}} Please refer to ], which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows ], and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:15, 19 October 2024
Berghuis v. Thompkins
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted. White Whirlwind 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. lethargilistic (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @White whirlwind: Please refer to MOS:Law, which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide, and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. lethargilistic (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)