Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. The Progressive/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

United States v. The Progressive[edit]

United States v. The Progressive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I write military history articles, because that is the field of expertise, but for a change of pace, I am submitting a legal article, about a celebrated free speech case in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose. This is written like a book or a History Channel documentary. It should instead be written as an encyclopedia article. The objective is to inform the reader, not to make the subject seem explosively fascinating. The prose is definitely improving. I should be done with my review soon. After a thorough review, which can be found on the FAC talk page, I am satisfied with the quality of this article. Thank you, Hawkeye, for your diligence both before and during the FAC. May your days be filled with unicorns and sunshine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hawkeye7. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A most excellent, thorough, and high quality quality improvement by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • Cover caption needs grammar checking
  • FN59: use a consistent date format.

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this article at GAN [2] and MILHIST ACR [3] and consider it is an excellent article which has seen significant improvements since GAN and now meets the FA criteria. Well done Hawkeye7. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Not sure this is FA yet, HawkEye. I think if I start with a few comments about the structure. Any given legal case normally has "The Facts", "Arguments" and "Judgment", something like that. As an encyclopedia we add in some background. With that in mind, the first paragraph of "Morland's article" is really background. The next two paragraphs do a better job of describing the facts relevant to the case itself. I realise the problems of moving that first paragraph somewhere else, so I shan't linger on the point. The treatment of the case itself is rather too cursory for FA, I think.

  • "suppress the article" - is this the "temporary restraining order" mentioned? If not, what is it in legal terms? "about to break the law" - what law? "Q clearances" - really interesting - is that in the right place? "However, the court's role was to rule on whether publication was legal, not whether it was wise" - well, of course. If the judge reiterated this, then it would be notable. Maybe if it could be rephrased to sound less editorially.
    • By "suppress the article", they meant permanently. But you have to go through a series of legal steps first. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In attempting to apply the Near and Pentagon Papers standards, the court was concerned about the prospect of publication causing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and potentially a global nuclear holocaust, although the government did not advance such a claim." - it's called the New York Times decision above, pick one. Also seems rather thin: this is a whole hearing?
  • I think the legal timeline could be clearer. I think it is: United States applies for temporary injuction. While that's pending, they for a temporary restraining order. Then the injuction itself is decided. Is that correct?
  • The Legacy section is rather short compared to the case's billing. What was subsequent case law in this area? How did it deal with this case? Where does the case fit into the overall narrative of this area of the law?
    • This case completed the trilogy in this area of Near, The Pentagon Papers and The Progressive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to come back to this, I think. I don't feel my comments above have been particularly well expressed and I'd like do better when I can. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to have another crack at explaining. From a legal perspective we want to know what the United States wanted (between my comment and your reply I feel like I did have it right, by the way), what was argued by counsel and what the result was. Extra detail about outside-the-courtroom is obviously useful, but at the moment it appears to confuse these key needs and make the overall passage look more detailed than it is in terms of these three things. So for example I think there should be a proper sentence about the temporary restraining order and why United States wanted it that establishes the discussion. So then we move on to arguments, of which the rest of the "In seeking..." paragraph is good for the claimant but not so much the respondents, of which there is little mention. Then I think you should expand on the finding. Which arguments did Warren agree with? What points did he highlight?
Next paragraph I think needs to flag up the fact we're moving outside the courtroom. Then we have the comment I flagged above "However, the court's role was to rule on whether publication was legal, not whether it was wise" - I'm not sure if that applies (or applies best) to the restraining order or injuction - if we had an actor who had impressed the point, then we could identify the context accordingly. It's an odd thing to start the paragraph with; it might more sense to finish the previous paragraph with it because it seems to be a reply to that.
It applies to the injunction. A temporary restraining order is not a legal ruling per se. The court just orders a stay while it hears legal arguments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right in thinking the next passage is an application by The Progressive to have the case thrown out as insufficient to merit a hearing? I assume it must be something like that because we haven't had "The parties were back in court again on March 26" yet. If so, this should be clearer (or if not, something else clearer to replace it). Presumably it was also concluded by rejecting The Progressive's argument on the point, if a hearing was called.
The TRO was granted, so the parties had to appear in court to present their arguments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I am led to believe that the last two paragraphs really capture the discussion over the injunction itself (maybe also some of the next section - see below?). I think the arguments need to be better (more thoroughly) expounded; if they are repeats then I think it would be best to flag them up briefly even if the substance of the argument has been explained above.
Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping there, although it seems an odd place to break: I think the section break might make more sense a paragraph later because then that second section would capture the whole republication affair which rendered the point moot; all the arguments regarding the injunction and another (?) application for the case to be thrown out would be better tied to each other, in legal terms.
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were concerned about information being leaked, in particular by the government's tacit acknowledgement that Morland's bomb design was substantially correct, something that could not otherwise have been deduced from unclassified information.

Delegate comment -- Grandiose, given that after a month's review the article has undergone the requisite checks and seems to have consensus to promote, is there anything further you wish to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article, very well written. Doug (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_States_v._The_Progressive/archive1&oldid=546708901"