Talk:Title 42 appointment

Title 42 appointment has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 19, 2020. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Title 42 appointment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 March 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the U.S. Public Health Service can hire – but not fire – scientists "without regard to the civil-service laws" using a Title 42 appointment?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Title 42 appointment.

Wikipedia

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Science Policy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Title 42 appointment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. — Wug·a·po·des 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
See 1 and 2

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

The block quote text includes "without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended" despite that not being present in the USC [1]. If the block quote is meant to be the original text of the law, it should be made clear because the first sentence makes it seem like the text is a copy of the USC. If it is meant to be the USC, the following sentence should be changed to reflect the quote.
The lead says that the EPA was able to start Title 42 appointments in 2005, but the article body says this began in 2006 before later saying this ability was extended to them in 2005; which is the correct date or can more context be provided on why the two different numbers appear?

Per WP:ELPOINTS it's usually best to avoid external links in the body of an article. There are a number here, and it may be worth considering their value to readers.
I think the article might read better if the order of sections was reversed.

@Wugapodes: Thanks for the review! I've corrected 1 and 2. The external links are part of the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations templates, which are routinely used inline. For this type of article, I tend to believe that it is best to describe the topic before the historical information, which is why the sections are in the order they are. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

On Hold for 7 days. — Wug·a·po·des 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listed — Wug·a·po·des 22:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]