Talk:Glik v. Cunniffe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wrestlinglover (talk · contribs) 01:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Will and I will be reviewing this article. I'm a paralegal science/political science/economics student so it is rather interesting that this is the first case I have actually reviewed on here.

Lead and Box

I do believe the amendments should be wikilinked in the lead.
Wiretapping should be wikilinked. Though a common term, a user may wish to learn more on the matter.
Box looks fine.

Background

"Simon Glik observed John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster, Boston police officers who were effecting an arrest." - Strange wording here in my opinion. I'd change it to "Simon Glik observed an arrest by Boston police officers John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster."
Source for the bystander comment.
I'd capitalize amendment in "First and Fourth amendment rights"

Opinion of the court

"public place was clearly established[2][14] a decade prior to Glik's arrest.[15]" I'd move reference 2 and 14 to before reference 15 so that it doesn't disrupt the sentence.

Subsequent developments

"The officers now face disciplinary action by the city." - Is this still a current issue? This case was covered almost 3 years ago. I would figure in that timespan the city would have done something. Are they being disciplined, could they be, or have they been? I think being more exact would help.
Good follow up on Glik. Really made the article look professional in that regard.

External links

Looks good.
Is there no template that this case would be included under, such as cases involving the bill of rights or incorporation?--WillC 02:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Good.

References

I'm gonna to assume good faith on most of these. They look reliable from my knowledge but I don't have the ability to check them.--WillC 01:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Fix the above comments and I think it is worthy of the GA banner.--WillC 01:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I've left this article here for two weeks and nothing has been done really. Sadly I'm gonna have to fail this nomination since there appears to have been no effort to fix the issues. I'm gonna leave the review open until the end of the day and if no fixes are made then I'm gonna fail it.--WillC 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes well after closure

Lead and Box

I do believe the amendments should be wikilinked in the lead.

Done

Wiretapping should be wikilinked. Though a common term, a user may wish to learn more on the matter.

Done

Background

"Simon Glik observed John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster, Boston police officers who were effecting an arrest." - Strange wording here in my opinion. I'd change it to "Simon Glik observed an arrest by Boston police officers John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster."

Done

Source for the bystander comment.

I'll get this on the expansion I'm about to do.

I'd capitalize amendment in "First and Fourth amendment rights"

Done

Opinion of the court

"public place was clearly established[2][14] a decade prior to Glik's arrest.[15]" I'd move reference 2 and 14 to before reference 15 so that it doesn't disrupt the sentence.

Changed to string cites (still using BB), will address on expansion.

Subsequent developments

"The officers now face disciplinary action by the city." - Is this still a current issue? This case was covered almost 3 years ago. I would figure in that timespan the city would have done something. Are they being disciplined, could they be, or have they been? I think being more exact would help.

I'll get this on the expansion I'm about to do.

Is there no template that this case would be included under, such as cases involving the bill of rights or incorporation?--

I'll get this on the expansion I'm about to do.

I had retired at the time it was being reviewed, I do appreciated the work that Wrestlinglover did in reviewing it. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable. I tried to keep it open as long as I could. If you re-nominate it and I'm free I may review it again.--WillC 02:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]