Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg/GA1

GA Review

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

This review is open

I nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg for GA because I believe it's now a good example of an article about a U.S. Supreme Court Justice: not too long but not too short, good prose, well sourced, and very clearly and well organized. The article has come a long way, overcome numerous past issues, and now is deserving of GA status in my opinion.

Please comment below and tell me if I'm right or wrong, and, if wrong, what you would suggest to bring it up to GA level.

Thank you. --NickDupree (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I have serious concerns about the completeness and neutrality of this article, as detailed below.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Beware of overly long sentences, which are bad style and can become confusing, but in general the prose is good.

   B. MoS compliance:

   The bibliography section should be before the 'see also' section, per WP:LAYOUT. Aside from that, no major issues.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are dead links in the references, and most references consist only of a bare link or book/article title, lacking the usual full citation information. There is a failure to pass WP:CITE here. Also, separate out general notes from footnotes. They should go in separate sections.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are a fair number of facts detailed here which are not properly sourced. The second paragraph on her early life is a case in point; the citation given is only a good reference for the last sentence. The section on her legal career and time as justice is unsatisfactory in this regard as well. Where do we know how many women were in her class at Harvard Law School? Where is the reference for her clerkship? The reference for her achievements at Columbia? Etc, etc. In a good article, any non-obvious fact must be sourced. The first paragraph on her personal life is entirely unreferenced.

   C. No original research:

   Covered under the concerns in 2b. In effect, any fact not sourced counts as WP:OR.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The coverage of her judicial career is incomplete and poorly structured. Supreme Court justices have enormous historical impact through their judicial philosophies and opinions. These are their greatest legacy; in my opinion, the coverage of Justice Ginsburg's judicial philosophies, major opinions, etc., is entirely inadequate.

   B. Focused:

   In addition to my concerns of the last section, the coverage of other aspects of Ginsburg's life borders on the trivial and intrusive. The level of detail about her illness is unnecessary, particularly in a BLP. Similarly, we don't need to know that she received a "warm welcome" from President Obama, or that she administed the Vice Presidential oath to Al Gore - that amounts to trivial news coverage.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is a small problem with overly enthusiastic and opinionated language in the article. It is unnecessary to describe Rehnquist as "sly," Ginsburg's rise as "meteoric," etc. In general, this is not a huge problem, and it is easily fixed.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   It might be nice to get some more pictures, but what's here is good and present no copyright issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately, due mostly to citation issues and inadequate coverage of her career as a justice, I have to fail this article at this time (I don't really anticipate you can fix them in a week, although I would be very happy to be pleasantly surprised). I think with a bit of fixing up, some research, and some writing, this article can be brought to GA status. Good luck!

Ray^Talk 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time for such a comprehensive review, and I hope your suggestions can get the article to GA status. I plan to implement many of your suggestions soon. NickDupree (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)