(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);[2] and
The article is well written, but uses language which is too "legalistic" given that the subject is likely to attract a wide audience (Please see WP:TECHNICAL for advice on how to approach this issue). The prose stitches together quotations from Supreme Court rulings quite a bit - perhaps adding more explanatory prose would assist in bringing the level down a notch.
Fail
(b) (MoS)
Generally the article complies with MoS, but on two minor points: (1) The link to incitement is incorrect as that article seems to only cover English law; and (2) the article switches between two different styles of lists in the prose (using "Firstly, Secondly," and then "(1) ... (2)")
Difficult to comment as most citations are either to a textbook (not available online) or original court decisions.
Don't know
(c) (original research)
Again, difficult to comment to what degree Original Research and WP:Synthesis may be an issue as I don't have access to the textbook. Ideally, the article should cite academics who have interpreted the case law, rather than the case law itself.
Don't know
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The article's categorization of the exceptions is not attributed to a source and it does not mention whether this is a closed or open list of exceptions? Some categories of exceptions are very briefly covered, could they be expanded on (perhaps if additional sources were used)?
Don't know
(b) (focused)
The article is focused, could even maybe use more detail at times.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The interpretations of Professor Volokh are given a lot of weight in the article and no other interpretations from other academics are provided.
Fail
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
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)
The "Bong Hits for Jesus" image is copyrighted and has restrictions on use. It is only to be used to illustrate the subject in question. Use in a general article such as this may violate those terms.
This article covers a popular topic and has a lot of potential. Nominator requested that the GA review be closed so that the article can go to peer review.
The obvious question is whether this article should be merged with Freedom of speech in the United States. Currently, there seems to be some discrepancies between the two articles as to how they are categorized. This article is relatively short and covers each exception briefly, could it be merged into the general article?
The way in which these exceptions have been categorized is not attributed. Is the list of exceptions closed or could it be added to in the future? How might it be added to, if it is possible? This could be mentioned in the article.
The article is well written, but the prose is "legalistic" and reads like a law school textbook. The subject has general appeal and is likely to be read by non-lawyers. Part of the issue is that it stitches together quotes from Supreme Court rulings, it might help if more explanatory prose were added to replace these quotations.
Court rulings can often be interpreted in different ways - could the boundaries of these exceptions be better defined and some of the debate be mentioned by citing reliable sources?
Legalistic Writing - On reflection, I may have been overly critical in my original comments that the article was too legalistic in its prose. It could be that it is unavoidable in this article - some examples:
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force or of law violation" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action". (I note though that imminent lawless action is linked)
"Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive epithet which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction"."
"Commercial advertising may be restricted in ways that other speech can't if a substantial governmental interest is advanced, and it directly advances that interest, and it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest."
--> As I don't have a lot of experience, I will ask for a second opinion from a "mentor" on these points. Connolly15 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my best to edit slightly or revise the instances of legal writing you mention above. On a few of these points I think you are exactly right - too much vocabulary terms and not enough layman's terms.
What do you think the next area I should focus on? Maybe trying to find an additional source or two to reduce the weight given to the Volokh case book? Lord Roem (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states under 'False statement of fact' that "Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished." This is obviously not true in the context of real life. Perhaps make a note on which kinds of 'false statements of fact' are under legislation would be in order, i.e. publishing, the courts. Towerbird (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Connolly15 asked me to comment here as this is their first GA review. Some of my comments are directed at the article, some at the review.
The 1.b section you failed for an imprecise wikilink might just be better fixed immediately rather than marking it down as a problem. The second point is much more difficult for an outside reviewer to quickly fix.
The Bong hits for Jesus picture (now removed, I gather) is probably borderline. The article doesn't necessarily suffer due to its absence (meaning its inclusion likely runs afoul of NFCC 8/1) but it isn't egregious and it does improve the article. In cases like these it is best to take a clear look at WP:WIAGA #6. The criteria is actually pretty minimal. When faced w/ marginal fair use images in GA nominations I generally say "this may be a problem at FAC and I think there is some concern about NFCC but if you feel the image is appropriate then leave it there". That gives the editors agency over the photo.
In general the virtues associated w/ the checkbox GA review template escape me. It looks nice but it is a pain in the ass to edit and can mislead both reviewer and editor as to the importance of various topic areas. In other words, the GA template itself gives me no indication what is the most critical problem with the article! Remember, your role as a reviewer is to support the editors as well as to be a gatekeeper for GA status. the structure of your review should support their attempts to perform triage on the article.
"Ideally, the article should cite academics who have interpreted the case law, rather than the case law itself." Yes and no. Law is kinda curious. In most academic disciplines researchers don't observe self-reflective subjects (social scientists do, but we'll get to that in a second). Legal scholars are watching the courts, the congress and the people interact but they are also observing appellate and supreme court justices whose opinions are both constructing the landscape to be studied and studying it. So our breakdown of sources into primary/secondary/tertiary falls apart with the legal literature. A good legal encyclopedia would be filled with direct references to opinions, perhaps many more than references to law reviews.
More comments later. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comments here should be considered suggestions only. Though I hope that resolving the problems I point out here would work toward dealing w/ the issues in the GA review, Connoly15 has not asked for a second opinion so they hold the final decision authority on passing or failing the article.
I generally agree that the tone in the article is a bit technical. I think the article could benefit from a more general tone. However, doing so without causing intellectual violence to meaning or content is difficult. Articles on law or medicine are difficult because they are nuanced, difficult subjects which often interface with the general public. Acute myeloid leukemia is a complex subject with a long history--all the same, laypeople can suffer from the disease or similar symptoms. Likewise a subject like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan can come up in discussion between individuals who are neither lawyers nor legal historians. Contrast this with an article like Newton's theorem of revolving orbits for which precision is important but not vital in avoiding a potential widespread misinterpretation of fact. So I don't know where precisely to come down on the subject. Articles on legal subjects need lexical precision, but we have to balance that need against comprehension in general.
One immediate way to resolve this would be to define broadly "Communicative impact restrictions" in the section bearing that name. Right now the section launches immediately into a list of examples without offering a reader a framework to tie them all together.
The obscenity section may not be complete or current. For instance, United States v. Stevens stands out as a recent update to the contours of the Miller Test (good overview from my all time favorite legal correspondant, Dahlia Lithwick here). The scope of this decision (esp. after this) may be limited, but I think it belongs here. I may be wrong, but in general I don't see too many cases post 2000 in the article and that causes me to raise an eyebrow.
The government section is generally much more clear and technical than the Communicative impact restrictions section, however many of the individual subsections end with a sentence which includes a broad (potentially contentious) claim that is uncited. I don't know whether or not the claims can be cited to the source mentioned in previous sentences (as they aren't online), but they should be checked.
I'm not too worried about original research. Most of the material on here seems reasonable and conforms well to what I understand about 1st amendment law. If there is OR, it is likely innocuous.
In general the article's biggest problem is the lack of overarching structure. A reader has no good way to navigate or understand the content except to read it all in a flat list. A great article on the subject would briefly (but outside of the WP:LEDE) introduce the various tests and the general premise of how we balance certain interests against each other (where balancing is part of the test in question).
That's all for now. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Fail
Pass
Don't know