Talk:William Orrick III

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

Please remove "overstepped his office when he" from both paragraphs below. That is a legal determination that has not been made and this language is motivated by partisan concerns.

On Friday, July 31, 2015 Judge Orrick overstepped his office when he blocked the release of videos of Planned Parenthood, granting the injunction requested by the National Abortion Federation.

On April 25, 2017, Judge Orrick overstepped his office when he blocked a Trump administration executive order to withhold funding from sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities, saying Trump had no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending. 144.121.71.130 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done Looks like Oshwah handled this. TJRC (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely needed to be removed from those sentences. They added a definite implication of bias and the publishing of content not reflected in a neutral viewpoint. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Orrick III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Will review shortly Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Image could use a caption (i.e. Orrick in YEAR)?
• "Upon returning to San Francisco, he chose not to join Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, the law firm co-founded by his grandfather William Orrick Sr.," I think this could flow more naturally as "Upon returning to San Fransisco, he chose not to join the law firm co-founded by his grandfather William Orrick Sr., Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP." because why does it matter that he didn't join it? Not because it was a prominent law firm, but instead because his grandfather was involved in it?
• "He served as head of DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation" DOJ should be spelled out, cannot assume the reader knows what it means
• "For a 10-month period during the lengthy nomination/confirmation process" a little unclear what the lengthy nomination/confirmation process was for, given that you previously say "He served as head" -> could be taken to mean the nomination process was after or before serving.
• "The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Orrick "well qualified" for the judgeship (the committee's highest rating)" somewhat unclear to the lay-reader why it matters what the ABA's committee rates him
• "reported it to the floor on August 2, 2012" I think reporting to the floor is a bit congress-ese, would it be possible to simplify or link?
• "The confirmation vote was again mostly on party lines," it isn't clearly stated that the other one was on party lines, only implied?
• "to the environment and human health, particularly in the Marina District and Fisherman's Wharf neighborhoods)." where exactly does this parenthesis start?

Characteristic good work, that's it from a first pass. Most are relatively subjective suggestions, feel free to discuss/ask for clarification on any. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, excellent comments, as usual. I've made some edits on each of your points — how does this look? Neutrality^talk 01:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've seen this and will revisit soon Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

prose looks good now Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Earwigs suggests no copyvio Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality just a few sourcing comments from my spot check:

• I don't see "The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Orrick's nomination on July 11, 2012," cited in source 11
• source #9 doesn't say he was the head but the supervisor of the Office of Immigration Litigation. I think that's a distinction worth making?
• I'd consider "The confirmation vote was mostly on party lines, with three Republican Senators—Flake, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski—joining all Democrats in voting to confirm Orrick" too close to the source which says "The vote was 56-41, largely along party lines. Three Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Democrats in voting for confirmation." While recognizing WP:LIMITED, I think you could stand to rephrase this.
• "fined them $200,000" technically it's nearly or almost $200,000
• I don't see "and on January 2, 2013, his nomination was returned to the President, due to the adjournment sine die of the Senate. " in the sourcing given

I may well have missed something, and most of my comments are technicalities, so I'm not overly concerned about quality of sourcing Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, thanks. I've made some edits on each point. Neutrality^talk 00:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, I'm fine with your removing the archive-urls, but the reason I ran the bot in the first place was that reference #1 turns up a 404 error for me. That needs to be fixed Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise I'm fine with the status of the article Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891 - Makes total sense - I found a live link for ref 1 and replaced the deadlink. Neutrality^talk 21:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, Ok, this article now meets the GA criteria, and I'm happy to pass. Nice work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Judge William Orrick III upheld the constitutionality of a California law banning the possession and sale of shark fin? Source: Bob Egelko, California shark fin ban upheld by federal judge, San Francisco Chronicle (March 26, 2014); Chinatown Neighborhood Ass'n v. Harris, 33 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/R v Zora

Improved to Good Article status by Neutrality (talk). Self-nominated at 23:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC).

Article:

New/Expanded? — Long enough? — Neutral? — Cited correctly? — Free from copyvios/plagiarism?

Hook:

Concise? — Interesting? — Accurate? — Neutral?

Image:

(If nominee has > 5 DYKs)

Reviewed another article?

(What this means)

• — Good to go. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 17:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)