Talk:Miranda Du/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I will review this one. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

​Interesting article! Because it was nice and concise, I was able to read through it fairly quickly. Only minor issues below.

Infobox

• The first two citations verify the year of birth, but is there a citation for her exact DOB inside of the infobox?

Early life and education

• Winfield – you could link this to Winfield, Alabama, since the other city names are linked

Federal judicial career

• Du became the first Asian Pacific American to serve as an Article III judge in Nevada – Heh, perhaps I'm just unlearned, but I wasn't familiar with the term "Article III judge" and had to look it up. I fear this term may not be common knowledge to non-technical readers. We could potentially reword it to simply "federal judge" or alternatively link the phrase "Article III judge" to United States federal judge, which mentions the phrase in the "Tenure and salary" section.
• Du is part of the court's Patent Pilot Program – Similarly, for readers unfamiliar with this program, we could include a brief explanation of what this entails.
• Cite note 9, the ABA rating of her judicial nomination, is a dead link now — I recommend adding the |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters (see Template:Cite web#Using "archive-url" and "archive-date" (and optionally "url-status") for webpages that have been archived), with a link to an archived copy of the source.
  • As a side note to this: this is more of a minor nitpick, but when citing web sources, in general it's a good idea to include the date you accessed the source, especially if the publication date of the source is unknown (see WP:CITEWEB). I don't think it's important enough to prevent this from passing GAN, but it'd be a good bibliographic detail to have.
• The "Notable decisions" section is well-researched and looks pretty comprehensive. As a stylistic tip for the future (not required for this GAN), I recommend grouping some of the cases into the same paragraph, e.g. cases that relate to the same kind of issue, or cases that happened in the same year. This would help avoid the issue of WP:Proseline, whereby the article turns into a repetitive timeline/list structure that isn't always the best style.

Overall, really good work improving the article from this state just a few months ago. Let me know if you have any questions—I'm pretty flexible, so if you don't agree with something I wrote, I'd be happy to discuss it. Mz7 (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Very thoughtful review, thanks. I've made some edits along the lines of what you suggested, most prominently a topical organization under "notable decisions." (The only thing I didn't do is access-dates, which I prefer not to use unless the source is undated or the access date is really significant.) Let me know how this looks. Neutrality^talk 01:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I like the reorganization! I have a quick question about one of the new passages you added:

• affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, which agreed with Du that the issue was moot because the federal government had completed all its contemplated plutonium shipments to Nevada — Did Du deny the state's request because it was moot? Looking at the sources, it looks like Du issued her decision before she knew the issue was moot. Looks like this source contains a bit more detailed background on Du's reasoning.

Thanks for your quick work on this! Give me a few moments to catch up. Mz7 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Good catch - I've added some edits to clarify matters. Neutrality^talk 19:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing now. Mz7 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Neutrality^talk 15:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)