Talk:McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 08:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

Review Results

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Reviewer Comments: Spelling and grammar are unremarkable. Prose are written academically and with fluency in a strong, unified voice. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: The article as a whole warrants this criterion to be satisfied. The lead section is remarkable and summarizes the article in a perfect number of words. I would consider looking over the Belotti and Buckley section to link the court cases, and even consider adding a {{Main}} or {{See also}} template to their respective case pages. While going off on a tangent about these cases is not appropriate for the page, providing easy access to additional information would be beneficial. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: Ref list is unremarkable. Subsections are broken down appropriately per MOS:ORDER. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: One of the most important elements of any court case is the outcome. While the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions are listed, along with the summary "7-2 vote", the article fails to cite this from 514 U.S. 334. I found that it is included on page 335, however, the article should list these citations in-line as it is part of a published opinion, and technically, is statistical as well. Additionally, while MOS:LEADCITE does not require citations in the lead section, it would be appropriate given the number of referenced cases, decisions and facts of the case. The allusion to analysis may also be complimented by a citation. While the last note would not warrant a hold on its own, when in conjunction with the other missing citations, I am marking criterion 2b as held for the time being. Please respond below when corrected so the review may be finalized. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: Content is free and clear of original research to the best of my knowledge. All sources that I verified were accurate and pertinent to their in-line counterpart. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: Do not be deceived by the suspiciously high confidence percentage. As with many Supreme Court related articles, the heavy use of quotation is expected when summarizing cases and court decisions. Most all content that appears in copyvio is properly cited quotations, or appropriately used common phrases when referring to this case. The few anomalies that do not fall into those two categories are too few to disqualify this article. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: The main topics of the article (being the case summary, outcome summary, and applicability in society) are covered in sufficient depth. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: While the Internet Autonomy section could be landscaped, it does not go too excessively on a tangent and most all of the information can be related to the case. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: When discussing majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, all sides are summarized well and neutrally. Likewise with analysis, all cases referenced avoid charged language and present arguments from either side. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: No significant edit controversies in the past 500 edits. All edits since start of 2020 have been by Mz7 only. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: All images are in the public domain per WP:PD b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: Although there are not many images, all are captioned remarkably well and in depth. Every image is relevant to it's respective section, and to the article as a whole.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: Please see 2b. Citations related to the categorization of justices based on opinion and lead section citations needed before review may be finalized.
· · ·

Additional Comments: This is a really good article and, holistically speaking, deserves GA status. Once corrected, this will be a beneficial addition to the GA list.

@Babegriev: Thank you for taking the time to review this article. In response to your notes on 2b, I made this change which cites the case's syllabus/headnote at page 335 as you suggested for the vote tally and list of case opinions. Regarding MOS:LEADCITE, as you mentioned, the guideline does not require inline citations to be present in the lead section in every article, and in this case I don't think they are necessary. I don't think anything in the lead section is all that controversial, since they are verifiable in the body, and other GA-class articles about Supreme Court cases have historically not needed inline citations in the lead, e.g. Lafler v. Cooper and Plumhoff v. Rickard. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns, and I would be happy to respond. Again, thanks. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated Review After Hold

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: No change. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: Above hold criteria have been satisfied. Other suggestions have been deferred to nominator's discretion. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: No change. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: No change. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: No change. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: No change. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: No change. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: No change. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: No change.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: Thank you to all who have taken the time to contribute to this article!
· · ·

• @Babegriev: Thanks again for your review! Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)