Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Sailing to Byzantium

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It's close, but it has one problem with technical terms, mentioned below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Problems are identified below.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The formatting could be improved
	2b. 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).	Citations are really excellent.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problem
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Expansion needed in a few places.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	One or two minor concerns, below.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No problems.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Placement and captions are great.
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not meet the GA criteria at this time.

Overall comments

This is an interesting article about an important topic, and it has many strengths (like thoroughness and sourcing). I am a very thorough reviewer (some might say nit-picky), so I have identified many issues below. Please don't be discouraged. When I see that an article has "Featured" potential, I push hard to make it as good as possible, and I am willing to work with nominators to improve the article, and I'm also capable of compromise.

The biggest issues

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lead section should summarize all sections of the article. The lead section here seems to summarize the decision, but not other parts of the article. Material from "Background", "Dissent", and "Subsequent developments" should be summarized in the lead. Since the lead should not containing any information not found elsewhere in the article, there is no need for citations in the lead. Instead, the same information should be cited where it appears in the body.

• Rewrote the lead and removed citations. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The first section of "Subsequent developments" contains only criticism of the decision. Should this be given a subheading of "Response" or "Criticism" or "Controversy"? You quote two legal experts who disagree with the opinion, and their comments are notable... but are there any notable comments (from reliable sources) of experts agreeing with the decision? This could be a bias problem.

• I have tried quite hard to find publications that support the decision. I managed to find one that supported it on procedural grounds but I have not been able to find anything else. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article is a little short, and I believe more relevant material could be added. The oral arguments were revealing, and I think some material from that would be useful. And this FindLaw summary gives many details which would be useful to the reader, but which are not in the article (related background law, "Police also knew that Alvarado was a minor", Costock said she "needed" to speak to Alvarado, not that she "wished" to, legal aspects of being a minor, etc.)

• Added a section summarizing the oral arguments. Added background about AEDPA and Miranda custody analysis to the background section. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Other questions and issues

• This article refers to the case as "No. 02-1684", linking to Case citation. Some FAs and GAs on SCOTUS cases link to United States Reports instead, and some appear in the format of "123 U.S. 456". Which link is preferable in this case, and which format?

• US Reports is preferred, nice catch! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The language of the first sentence seems odd to me, stilted and potentially biased. (Pretty much the same sentence is listed under "Holding" in the infobox.) Is this a direct quote from some official summary? If so, it should be sourced. If not, it seems like it could be reworded to be as NPOV as possible. For instance, "held that a state court considered the proper factors and reached a reasonable conclusion" is windy and a little confusing, and could be misinterpreted to mean that "reasonable" applies to the SCOTUS decision. I think it would be better as "upheld a state court decision that", if that is as accurate. Also, saying "despite the fact" could come across as rebutting the conclusion. I admit, I'm not overly familiar with language used to describe SCOTUS holdings, and accuracy is most important. Could you either change the wording, or clarify why you think it's appropriate?
  • The word "reasonable" actually refers to the legal standard used in this case. The Court will only grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus if the state court's decision was objectively unreasonable. I recently changed the language to say that the Court declined to overturn the state court, but even that is not quite right. The Court decided that the state court's decision was not objectively unreasonable and thus declined to grant a writ of habeas corpus. I'm working on making the article more precise. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• A "See also" section should not list articles already linked to in the body of the article. I don't think the section is needed here.

• Added some additional relevant links. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The "J.D.B. v. North Carolina" section uses Wikipedia:Summary style, but summarizes the decision in two sentences. I think more information about that case would be relevant here, and the section could be expanded.

• Expanded the summary. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• The lead mentions many topics which the reader many not be adequately familiar with, and should be linked, such as Miranda warning, Minor (law), and second-degree murder. Throughout the article, technical terms are sometimes used without a wikilink or explanation (such as "Discretionary review" or "suppress his statements".)

• Added wikilinks to lead and article. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Since Miranda warnings are central in this case, they should be briefly described or defined in the "Crime and investigation" section.

• Addressed in the crime and investigation section. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your referencing is very thorough! But I think the format could be improved. You should consider having separate "Notes" and "References" sections. Footnotes could go in Notes, with brief reference format (e.g. "Alvarado v. Hickman") and the page numbers and/or relevant quote. A full reference (including full title, link, last-accessed, etc.) can go in the References section, each listed a single time. This would eliminate duplicate information, help people find sources quickly, and lead to a cleaner look. See Augmentative and alternative communication for an example.
  • I really like this reference formatting. Updated the article per suggestion. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• There are, unfortunately, a few problems with the images of justices. Both images are tagged as public domain, claiming that they were created by U.S. government employees, but that doesn't seem to be correct. See this link for discussion about the two photos.
  • Added a new image of Justice Kennedy. Per the upload log, the new image is a derivative of this image (which has been verified). Per the discussion you linked to, the image of Justice Breyer appears to be ok. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 21:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Updates from Nominator

• Really excited to tackle the suggestions mentioned above. Currently in the middle of a move right now, but I will revise the article on August 7th-9th. Hopefully that is acceptable as the reviewer mentioned the hold would last 7 days. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 18:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Although this article is well on its way to attaining GA status, the issues were not resolved in the time that the review was open, so the nomination has failed. If you later resolve these issues, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently working on improving the article, per Quadell's suggestions. After I'm done, I will renominate for GA status! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Connolly15 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. 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.

2. 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The article is well written in a clear and concise manner.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Please see discussion - a few minor fixes are required. Corrected.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References all look of a high quality.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	See discussion section, the citations need to be reformatted. No problems.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No OR problems.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Please see the discussion section for comments. Can these major aspects be included (precedent set, comment in the news media, further jurisprudence on the precedent? Content added.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Article is well focused and does not stray or go into too much detail.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Subsequent developments section is now NPOV as support and criticism mentioned. Prose is neutral.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No problems.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	One image needs to be looked at. No problems.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No problems.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Article meets the Good Article criteria.

Discussion

General Comments

• I wonder if the article could be further expanded - has the case been followed or distinguished in any further rulings of the Supreme Court? I note that this was decided in 2004. You could add a section on this in "Subsequent Developments" if applicable. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 00:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• For Support / Criticism ... did the case receive any main stream press coverage (the first sentence mentions the press)? This should be worked in if so.  Done Connolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty locating main stream press coverage. I did find a New York Times article, but it essentially is just a summary of the holding. I will do some additional searching here. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 00:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

After further searching, I still cannot find any coverage worth including. This is the Google search I used, which should find anything available in the online archives of mainstream news publications. The CNN article is just announcing that the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, the New York Times article is just a summary of the holding, and the USA Today article is just incidental coverage. The rest of the search results are from court records or scholarly publications. As such, I've decided to remove the mention of coverage in the media with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Under "Subsequent Developments" the first sentence shouldn't be there if the article is going to include the J.D.B. v North Carolina case as a sub-section in this section, as it is neither a scholarly publication or the press. Perhaps create a subsection on "Legal reception" and move the subsection there and include any more rulings there have been referring to the case? DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Split into separate sections with this edit. Added rulings referring to the case with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 00:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead needs to summarize the whole article. None of the "Subsequent Developments" section is included. Try to work this into the lead in general terms, especially if the case has been followed or distinguished in subsequent rulings. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think the lede would benefit from a concluding sentence that explains the impact of the ruling (especially for readers who are not going to go on and read until the end of the article). Concluding with: "In a split decision, the Supreme Court declined to overturn the state court's conclusion because it was not objectively incorrect," doesn't give a good explanation of what the precedent set is. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• If lead is expanded further it might be helpful to break it into two appropriate paragraphs. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to resolve all 3 lead issues with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations

• *I see the previous reviewer suggested that the article adopt this format and pointed to the article Augmentative and alternative communication as an example. I like this format a lot, but the citations need to make it clear which Reference is being referred to. As in the Augmentative and alternative communication it provides the author and page number, and links to the full biographical reference. As this article is shorter, when I click on the page number it just brings me to the reference section (so I can't tell what source is being referred to (without seeing the coding of course)). It would be better if each footnote included a "source short form" and page number. For example, "Yarborough v Alvarado (Opinion), p. 7" and continue linking to the relevant source in the list of references as is done now.  DoneConnolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

*Don't provide full quotations in the footnotes unless it is particularly necessary for understanding.  DoneConnolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

• I see you have made a lot of progress from the first review in wiki-linking concepts that are unfamiliar to the reader - I think a few more could still be linked (e.g. respondent, precedent). You should try to read the article from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with U.S. or even common law. Terminology such as "respondent" changes in different legal systems, and not all even rely on precedent - so a reader may not understand what these mean. As I said though you've made a lot of progress in this area.  DoneConnolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tried to resolve this through this edit. I linked respondent, precedent, charged, majority opinion, concurrence, and dissenting opinion. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thompson v Keohane - Don't Wikilink to a non-existent article - would it be appropriate to include a citation for the case perhaps? (Trial and Conviction section & Oral Argument Section) DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit. I opted to use quotations here because the cited option is all one page (i.e., I can't give page numbers). -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

• Image issues: Supreme Court Building image (Oral argument section) is not free and requires attribution in the article. Please see the image creator's page for details: User:UpstateNYer/ImageAttribution DoneConnolly15 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit. I've changed the image to one that is in the public domain. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor issues

• Clean up: state-court v state court in the article. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article uses the idiom "red herring" in the Dissent section. This violates WP:IDIOM in the MoS. If it is a quote from the Judge, please reformat it as a quotation. Otherwise reword to avoid idioms. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Red herring was a phrase used by Justice Breyer, but I decided the article would be clearer without the term. Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• As mentioned from the first review, the "See Also" section should not link to what is already linked in the article - likely the article doesn't need a See Also section at this point. DoneConnolly15 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved with this edit. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Result

• As these issues are relatively minor, I will put the review on hold for 7 days to allow for further amendments.

With my most recent edits, I've attempted to address all issues brought up above. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the review, the feedback was really useful! Please let me know if there are any other suggestions you have. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yarborough v. Alvarado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426071312/http://www.njdc.info/2006resourceguide/PDFs/12%20Education/A%20Law%20Enforcement%20on%20Campus/Holland_Schooling%20Miranda.pdf to http://www.njdc.info/2006resourceguide/PDFs/12%20Education/A%20Law%20Enforcement%20on%20Campus/Holland_Schooling%20Miranda.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)