Talk:Wiley Rutledge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Excellent spelling, prose, and grammar throughout. The lead is long enough and covers the main points; the layout is well-structured and comports with guidelines; the prose avoids weasel words, euphemisms, etc.; and the MOS guidelines about fiction and lists do not apply here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Contains a properly formatted reference section. All citations are to reliable sources. c and d are combined section-by-section below.

   i. Lead

   ii. Early life and education

   iii. Career

   iv. Court of Appeals (1939–1943)

   v. Supreme Court nomination

   vi. Supreme Court (1943–1949)

   a) First Amendment

   b) Criminal procedure

   c) Wartime cases

   d) Equal protection

   e) Business, labor, and the Commerce Clause

   vii. Personal life and death

   viii. Legacy

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the subject extensively without straying into extraneous detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article refrains from judgment calls on Rutledge's judicial philosophy or decisions and turns only to reliable sources for secondary analysis.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A couple edits every month or so; no warring whatsoever.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are well-used and well-captioned. I tried finding a picture of Cloverport circa 1890s for the 'Early life and education' section, but I couldn't, and that's well beyond the scope of a GA review and probably even an FA one. All images have reasonable justifications for public domain status.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Status query

TheTechnician27, Extraordinary Writ, where does this review stand? It was opened five weeks ago, and only one edit made here and to the article by the reviewer since the beginning of the month. How soon is this likely to be completed? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. The review will be completed by the end of the week. Real life has just gotten a bit hectic lately; however, I have checked the lead, Early life and education, and Supreme Court nomination but forgot to update them, and they were all good. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)