Talk:Dr. Bonham's Case/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bencherlite^Talk 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• No ambiguous links.
• No deadlinks (or, indeed, any links)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I made some minor copyedits, particularly per Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions changing "the College" to "the college". Some very minor points to tidy, please: (I) the quotation in the first paragraph of "Impact in America": should that be "according to the Lord Coke"? (II) Which King? Specify and link, I think. (III) In the final paragraph, there are a lot of "mentioned"s and it could do with another turn of phrase; I'm too slow today to think of one. (IV) Similarly (sorry, not in order), the "later development" section has a few "ideas" where another word would add variety. (V) Can't quite work out what's going wrong with this in the "assessment" section, but something is: "Ellesmere maintained it was unconscionable to allow the judges power to throw aside Acts of Parliament if they were repugnant or contrary to reason, he spoke "not of impossibilities or direct repugnancies"; it was acceptable to overturn an Act if it was clearly and obviously repugnant, but not otherwise"

   "according to" fixed; for "mentioned" I'm using "discussed" and "brought up". Ellesmere I worked out - fixed, and split into two sentences. "ideas" - fixed with "theory" and "jurisprudence".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   (I) You mention in the lead that the King was deeply unhappy with the decision, but I don't think this is made out by the text. (II) You say that Marbury is seen as referring to this case in its wording, but by who? Is this a general view? (III) First paragraph of the "background" section: are English and British being used interchangeably here, by you or the sources, as "this continued" suggests, or not?

   Re the King "deeply unpopular" is given; I seem to have failed to add a cite to Drinker's work. Whoops. Re Marbury, the view of Feldman was thus - that it is seen as X - and so I'm using his opinion; I can't find anything to the contrary. Drinker's work now added. Re English and British; the use of British is from the source, the use of English is mine (since the decisions and opinions given in that article are based around the attitude of the English courts, and the Scots have traditionally had some problems with the idea of the supremacy of Parliament - over the Act of Union vis a vis independence, for example). Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

On hold for these to be sorted out. Some of these are down as prose points, some as verifiability points, but don't worry too much about the subject heading – I clearly haven't... Bencherlite^Talk 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All fine now; I added in the King's name and reworded the English / British sentence to answer my own issues. Nice work. Bencherlite^Talk 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)