Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afroyim v. Rusk/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 11:55, 25 December 2012 [1].

Afroyim v. Rusk[edit]

Featured article candidates/Afroyim v. Rusk/archive1

Nominator(s): — Rich wales 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Afroyim v. Rusk is a landmark Supreme Court case on U.S. citizenship law. The article has been a Good Article for almost two years, has been worked on extensively since that time, and is (in my opinion) ready now to be recognized as a Featured Article. — Rich wales 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

1 OTRS, 3 USGov, 1 PD-US-not renewed. Sources and authors provided.
did a bit of cleanup on some summaries and improved tagging. GermanJoe (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(moved comments by Ed! (on issued that have been resolved) to talk page)

Support Exceptional work. All of my questions have been addressed, and I think the article has everything it needs. —Ed!^(talk) 14:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(moved lengthy comments by Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia (on issues that have been resolved) to talk page)

Who is moving and striking commentary by others? That is best left to either the delegates or reviewers entering the commentary. No problem in this case, just saying. My comments were neither lengthy nor needed striking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. I moved the resolved, struck-out comments to the talk page to make it clearer what was left. I moved your comments along with Wehwalt's because they were a followup to the exchange I had with Wehwalt (where I had used templates without realizing the implications). Sorry if I misstepped here. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, I just came back to continue reviewing and found I was gone and struck, and wanted to make sure you know that only reviewers should strike, and you shouldn't move others' commentary without checking. No problem-- just wanted to make sure you knew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not yet~~, so although some of my earlier comments (on pronoun usage) were moved to talk, I still have some minor cleanup issues, that I will note here where my previous commentary was:
- Why are images placed such that they extend into the next section? WP:ACCESS#Images asks us to try to make placement easier on screen readers, and I can't tell why that can't be done here. Why can't images be moved to the top? I moved a few up, but more of them could be at the top for accessibility.
- {{Main}} is used incorrectly as a hatnote. The main template is used when this article uses summary style to excerpt a summary portion of that article. That is not always the case here. Most of the articles hatnoted are already linked in the text, and in some cases, that is all that is needed. Unless WP:SS and truly "main" is going on, if the links are really needed as hatnotes, they might be Seealso or Further. Need review.
- Naturalization is used in lead, linked later in the article; please check that all terms are linked on first occurrence. Do we really need three links to Israel-- a place most readers are familiar with? Do we need to link artist to painting? What is intended there? See WP:OVERLINK; why not just say he was a painter? Please doublecheck all linking.
- ~~Please doublecheck acronyms... INS is not defined on first occurrence, and per the above, it is linked twice.~~
- ~~More of same: dual citizenship is used in the lead but not linked, then it's linked twice in the text. Link on first occurrence.~~
- Citations are not consistent, example: ^ Temple University Faculty page for Peter J. Spiro. Retrieved November 23, 2012. does not identify publisher in same format as other citations. Is this the full title of the article? "Citizenship ... expatriation". ABA Journal 53: 752. August 1967. That is, are the ellipsis the actual article title?
- ~~Please review throughout for correct use of WP:ENDASH, example, ... favor in a 5-4 decision issued ... that should be an endash.~~

These are trivialities, but trivialities that should be cleaned up before the star is awarded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll work on these things in the next 6–12 hours. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, looking at the prose, please see also my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington v. Texas/archive1. As a layperson, I completely understand the lead here. I do see some prose issues:

A series of treaties in place between the United States and other nations (the Bancroft Treaties), which had sought to limit dual citizenship following naturalization, were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.
- Why not:
  - The Bancroft treaties (a series of treaties between the United States and other nations) limited dual citizenship following naturalization, but were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.
I don't think we should ever obligate a reader to click out of the lead to understand the text. As a layperson, I am mystified when I see a link to a word that I think is a common word, and discover is a legal term (distinguished). I'm not sure how this can be fixed, but it does confuse the layperson. I have to click on a common word to figure out why the link is there. No idea how to fix that, but it just hit me weird.
" ... born abroad ... distinguished from ... born or naturalized in the US ... did have the authority to revoke citizenship in such cases." Which cases (of the two)? I'm able to figure it out by using my brain, but I had to go over the sentence and its numerous clauses several times before I got there ... try to make this more direct. I think the entire sentence can probably be recast to be more direct.
The "however" before the emdashes is completely throwing me; I can't see why it's needed.

I'm not opposing here as at Washington v. Texas because I do understand the lead: I just shouldn't have to work so hard to get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the above. I've reworked the lead section so (I believe) it's more readily comprehensible to the average reader; for example, I am no longer using "holding" or any of its derivative forms in the lead at all, since there would simply not be any way to use that word without wikilinking to a definition (something you objected to in the lead).

Regarding wikilinks, I do note that WP:OVERLINK allows for the possibility of a repetition of a wikilink "at the first occurrence after the lead". Even so, I removed the wikilink on "naturalization" in the "Background" section (even though I still think it should be there, I don't want to get into a fight over it).

Regarding image placement, I did some movement of images, but I understand that WP:IMAGELOCATION discourages placing a left-justified image at the very start of a section; I really felt it would improve overall appearance to alternate between right- and left-justified images (and this is acceptable AFAIK), but that means that some images simply cannot be put at the top of a section. I would have preferred to put the Hugo Black photo in the "Opinion of the Court" section, and if it turns out to be simply mandatory to place that photo there, then I guess I'll have no choice but to abandon my idea of alternating sides.

I changed the "main" hatnote to use the "further" template instead. It's possible that this entire hatnote is really not necessary at all; I want to think about it a bit more (and am open to suggestions).

Regarding "artist" / "painter", there's a problem because English doesn't have a commonly used term specifically referring to an artist who works in the medium of paint. I did use "painter" a while ago, but someone objected that they were confused about whether Afroyim was an artist or a house painter. I decided that calling him an "artist", while soon thereafter describing portraits he had painted, would be sufficiently clear, and I believe wikilinking the word "artist" to Painting is appropriate in this context. But I'm certainly open to contrary arguments on this.

Regarding wikilinking on "dual citizenship", I did have a wikilink on "multiple citizenship", but apparently you didn't see the connection between "multiple" citizenship and "dual" citizenship (and thus felt uncomfortable with the absence of a wikilink on "dual citizenship"). I've rephrased the lead now to say "dual (or multiple) citizenship"; if you still feel this is unsatisfactory, I'd be grateful for more ideas.

In the article named "Citizenship ... expatriation", that really, really is the title of the article; apparently, the editors of the ABA Journal considered this to be appropriate as a way of expressing a main heading ("Citizenship") and a subheading ("expatriation", without a capital). I'll recheck the Spiro faculty page cite you mentioned, as well as the other cites just for good measure.

I have more work to do, but the above is a start. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tired to look in tonight (will tomorrow), but on the repetition of wikilinks, I usually agree; if you feel another link to any non-common (technical or jargon) term is warranted, don't take it out on my account (there will be no fight :). I'm more concerned when first occurrences aren't linked (which I thoguht was the case there, could be I missed something), or when common terms (like Israel) are linked three times. Yes, sometimes it is helpful to repeat links, particularly when they are far apart. Use your judgment, but please make sure first occurences are linked, common terms (like Israel) aren't overlinked, and acronyms are defined on first occurrence-- no argument from me on such trivialities. I also agree with all you wrote on images and alternating them, but you had some of the images so far down in the section that they were into the next section. I see the problem on "painter", no idea how to fix that, so struck. I haven't taken a new look yet, but I'll look in tomorrow, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I did some more work just now — checking use and placement of wikilinks, removing some redundant references to "U.S." citizenship when the context made the country under discussion clear, and reworking the discussion of the later Rogers v. Bellei case to use the important legal term "distinguish", which I had originally used in the lead but took out because of your concerns over making readers follow links out of the lead. Please also note that I did a cleanup pass on the article using the dashes.js script. Please let me know if you see any unaddressed concerns that I may have missed this evening. Thanks again for your eagle eyes. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all of that looks good. I haven't had time to read the rest of the article, so I can't support, but the lead is entirely comprehensible to me (could be because I'm familiar with immigration and naturalization law issues somewhat, while the other law FAC lead is still not entirely clear to me as a layperson, maybe you can help tweak?) so that's all I can offer for now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I peer reviewed this some time ago, and reviewed it again recently in preparation for this FAC. I think it meets the FA criteria fully. I have a few quibbles, which should be addressed but do not detract from my support.

There are a few wikilinks that seem to me to be terms that most readers would understand already - the two I noticed were voted and election in "...Beys Afroyim, a man who had voted in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen..." in the lead, though election is linked in the body too. (Note I am fine with wikilinks to legal terms like distinguishing which most readers will not be familiar with)
The article uses {{Cquote}}, but the documnetation for that template says it is for pull quotes ("visually distinctive text that is already present in the same article"), which does not seem to be the case here. I think the Cquotes should be replaced with {{Quotation}}

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed both of the above concerns from Ruhrfisch. — Rich wales 03:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent work, and it appears that the other reviewers have already caught any concerns. GregJackP Boomer! 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns all addressed. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.