Wikipedia:Peer review/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive1

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a good idea of what needs to be done to it in order to make it a Featured Article.

Thanks, Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have looked to see what needs to be done to bring the article up to FA standard. I haven't checked out the prose in detail, but here are some matters for consideration:-

• The lead needs to be more than a brief introduction to the article. It should briefly summarise all the main aspects covered in the text.
• Currently, there are some problems with image placement. A relatively short article with a lengthy infobox often makes such placements problematic; here, we have much of the early text squeezed between the infobox and the left hand images. The later immages are very untidily arranged. I guess you will want to keep the infobox to have uniformity with other Supreme Court case articles, but maybe not all the images are necessary? In any event you need to consider better ways of organising them
• As a general rule of thumb in referencing you should ensure that all paragraphs end with a citation; this is not the case at the moment. In some instances you may have put the citation in the wrong place, but in some cases statements lack citations. For example:-
  • "They thus reasoned that the majority opinion exactly contradicted the original intended meaning of the 14th Amendment."
  • The whole second paragraph, bar the first sentence, of the "Subsequent developments" paragraph
  • "Others refer to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which followed Wong Kim Ark and clearly assumes that those affected were not previously legal citizens."
  • "H.R. 1868 and S.J.Res. 6 failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress and died when the 111th Congress adjourned on December 22, 2010. As of the end of 2010, no other proposal of this type has ever been enacted into law or ratified as an amendment to the Constitution."
• Some of your "references" are not references, but are lengthy footnotes of uncited material. These notes are subject to the same citation requirements as the rest of the article. The length of some of these notes is also a matter of comcern; note 5 is around 150 words.
• There are inconsistencies in your reference formats, e.g. you have "Retrieved" and "retrieved", different retrieval date formats, possibly others (I haven't checked thoroughly)
• Some of the text is very off-putting for the general reader. For example, the Background section begins: "Wong Kim Ark[4] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé)", and later we have: "Wong Yook Sue (黃郁賜, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 ti33, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 tsi3); Wong Yook Thue (黃沃修, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 sliu33, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 sau1); and Wong Yook Jim (黃沃沾, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 zim33, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 zim1). A fourth son—his eldest, Wong Yoke Fun (黃毓煥, Toisanese: wong11 yuk3 von22, Cantonese: wong4 yuk1 wun6)—was rejected by U.S. officials..." These formulations may be of help to a tiny minority of potential readers, but will drive the majority away in droves.

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not able to watch individual peer review pages, please contact my talkpage if you have questions arising from this review, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)