Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 08:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

1. General
   1. There is a lot of talk about Nevada v. Hall - can some info be included in the background section as to that case?
2. Lede
   1. The 5–4 decision is unusual as it overruled precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. - why is overruling precedent unusual? According to whom was this unusual? Awkward phrasing
   2. ...both in court and through administrative proceedings. Due to this ruling... - is this referring to the SCOTUS ruling, the administrative proceedings, or something else?
3. #Supreme Court
   1. The Supreme Court justices who decided on the case - were these the justices who decided it the first time (4-4) or the second time (5-4)?
   2. In deciding the case in favor of the FTB, the Court overruled the 1979 case Nevada v. Hall, a 40-year-old case where the Court had previously come to the opposite conclusion. The Supreme Court has expressed that stare decisis is "indispensable" to the rule of law, and as such it is seldom overruled.
      1. It is clear that, if a court overrules a previous decision, the decisions must conflict; saying that it had "come to the opposite conclusion" is unneeded
      2. it is seldom overruled - no one overrules the Supreme Court, it merely overturns its precedent; also, what does "it" refer to? stare decisis? the rule of law?
      3. Overruled should be "overturned"
4. #Background
   1. ...an appeal is still pending - needs to be updated
   2. The Court did rule, however, that because Nevada law limits... - which court?
   3. Because earlier rulings by the Nevada Supreme Court had limited FTB's liability... - which rulings?
5. #Majority opinion
   1. Some legal experts have criticized the opinion... - who?
6. #See also
   1. a decision which held that the Eleventh Amendment is retroactive - the only previous discussion of the 11th amendment was ...there was backlash causing the Eleventh Amendment to be passed. - if the 11th amendment is relevant, it should at least be explained generally
7. #Notes
   1. n 2: Why is the list of 44 states needed? And, if it is included, it should be sourced
8. #Further reading - all of the further readings listed require subscriptions - if the section is included, at least 1 open-access resource should be included

Discussion

Given the issues noted above, I have placed this GA on hold. Please let me know if there are any questions --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Just a reminder ping about this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Um, the article hasn't been edited since October 14, so the issues are still there. Are you suggesting I should close it? DannyS712 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no deadline as such so it is up to you in the end. Many of these get forgotten about and sometimes the editors just need a push to get things going. If you have made comments and no one has replied or fixed the issues after a month you would be justified in failing it. Digging a bit more I see MrClog took a wikibreak on 19th September, after you created this page, but well before the review was started. I can't work out when they will be back, but they do say a long wikibreak. You have a few options. You could fail it as enough time has passed. if MrClog comes back they will see your comments and could renominate it again. You could wait a bit longer given the delay in starting the review. You could try and find someone else to address your concerns (wikiprojects can be fruitful). There is no wrong option, but it currently is the 7th oldest hold so it is likely other editors like me will come along and query the status at some point. We generally arn't too worried as long as we see progress being made. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Okay. Given my delay in starting the review, I was planning to wait longer than normal DannyS712 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Ping me if you have any questions. AIRcorn (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I will work on the article utilising the above feedback before the end of the month. --MrClog (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712 and MrClog: Still no editing since October at the article. How are we placed? AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.