Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
A fact from Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 February 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 December 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
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.
the legislature would be able to continue to operate until the next legislative session when a political solution to this dispute can be reached. - changes tense from subjunctive to present in the middle of the sentence
I marked this as not broad because the article fails to explain why the original dispute arose. It says Dayton issued a letter explaining his vetoes; he sought to avoid a government shutdown while convincing legislative leaders to renegotiate provisions of the budgetary bills. but doesn't explain what he wanted to renegotiate. It also doesn't explain much about the broader significance of the case. Other than than, however, the article is pretty good.
Partly done I have expanded the Background section with additional context surrounding the dispute and the particular provisions that Dayton wished to renegotiate. ebbillings (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Done I also expanded the Ruling of the Supreme Court section with additional information about the litigation history of the item veto power in Minnesota. DannyS712, does this sufficiently address your concerns about the breadth of the article? ebbillings (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ebbillings: unfortunately, it does not. I still fail to understand the broader significance of the case. How was this more significant than any other case between different branches of government controlled by different parties? Can you expand on the short-term effect on the budget, and the longer-term effect on the political situation in Minnesota? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have added information to the Lower court ruling and Reactions to the ruling and aftermath sections that should explain the budgetary impacts of this case in a deeper way. ebbillings (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ebbillings: 2 issues, 1 minor, 1 not: you start two sentences in a row with "although", which seems odd, and can you explain what the "Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commission" is? How can they just "provide" the state legislature with funds? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
Done Sentence reworded. ebbillings (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Partly done I have expanded the Background section with additional context surrounding the dispute and the particular provisions that Dayton wished to renegotiate. ebbillings (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
