Talk:Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

This review of mine has somewhat slipped. I was aware that the main editor was not available, and I used that as a reason to doing other tasks. I'm now going document my findings so far on this nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this part of the review I'm going to go through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until after the last section. I will be mostly highlighting "problems", but I may fix minor ones as a go, so they may not be listed here. If I don't comment much on a particular section , that indicates that it is OK. Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background -

Note 1, which gives a direct quotation from Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act really needs a link/citation back to the original text of the Act.

Proceedings below -

I find the title "strange": (1) it seems unfinished; (2) is "below" necessary? The next section is titled Supreme Court, so perhaps "below" is an American term for court proceedings below that of the Supreme Court - I'm not a US citizen, so I'm not familiar with this terminology.
The first paragraph is well referenced, but it seems to be "floating" out of time:

No date of creation for the FPC - perhaps this is not too important.
In the final paragraph a date is given for the start of the investigation - the first mention is given here, but as it is date later on I'll let this one go.
Olds' failure to be re-elected is mentioned in some detail, but again there is no date for this, i.e. when did he get push off?

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]