Talk:When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Tamzin

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're nominating this already? Sure, I'll review it over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1: Well-written[edit]

No problems in the lede, very good summary.
Also no problems in the Oral arguments section.
All's good in the Analysis section (I'm beginning to see a trend.)
Legacy is good. Rare you get an entire article with no MoS violations or muddy prose (or even little nitpicks I can suggest for that matter)

Criterion 2: Verifiable[edit]

Let me take a source sample here.
- 2a (NCC 2023): Yeah, this gives a good and reliable summary of the case.
- 4 (Hanauer 1989): Checks out!
- 7 (Morrison 1995, p. 61 n. 41) I love citing footnotes. Yep, checks out very well.
- 14 (Christopher 2019, pp. 318–319) Good call giving the quotes in the cite, gives nice context; checks out as well.
- 17 (DiCioccio & Little 2020, pp 20-21) You're going to have to teach me how to do the thing where you cite multiple sources with one citation sometime. Anyhow yes, this checks out. (Also, holy heck you oughta include that "spoiled icing on the collapsed cake" quote, that's beautiful!)
- 30 (Goldman 2003, p. 9) Yep, that quote is in there.
- 33 (Sommerlad 2018) They do indeed repeat that claim.
- 34 (Runkle 2017) As do they.
Yeah, this checks out a-ok.

Criterion 3: Broad[edit]

This definitely hits broadness. The only point I'd raise is the Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc line feels slightly off-topic, but that's ultimately my personal taste and it still hits 3b criteria including it.

Criterion 4: Neutral[edit]

Don't see any POV issues here.

Criterion 5: Stable[edit]

Obviously.

Criterion 6: Illustrated[edit]

That picture of Weddington is public domain of course. It's a shame there isn't a picture of Floyd. I would suggest that a picture of the whole SCOTUS at the time, but that'd require a picture after Black and Harlan died but before Rehnquist and Powell took office. If such a picture exists, it'd be good to add, but totally understandable if not.

General thoughts[edit]

This hits the GA criteria without you even having to change anything, congrats. Feel free to respond to my inane suggestions at your leisure. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.