Wikipedia:Peer review/Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez/archive2
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am seeking a Peer Review as a step to Featured Article status. After a first Peer Review, a successful GA promotion, and subsequent copyediting, I think one final set of eyes to look the article over before a FA nomination would be very helpful.
Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Cryptic C62:
- I think the lead would benefit from having more information about the decision itself. Was the decision unanimous? Who wrote the majority opinion? If there was a minority opinion, who wrote it and what were their concerns?
- The beginning of Background assumes that the reader has read the lead, or that the reader is from the United States, neither of which will always be true. I suggest rephrasing to make it clear that this took place in the US.
Done
- "The purpose of the act was to provide government-funded legal aid to indigent defendants" What is an "indigent defendant"?
- Done
- "Restrictions included prohibitions against bringing class action lawsuits" Bringing them where? Perhaps "bringing" should be replaced with "filing"...?
- Done
- "trying to collect attorney's fees" Was the prohibition against the trying or the collecting (rhetorical question)? I suggest rephrasing to "collecting attorney's fees"
- Done
- "Carmen Velazquez lost welfare benefits from the government under the provisions of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act (TANF)" When was this?
- Done
- The phrase "distortion of speech" is placed within quotation marks for its second appearance in Subsequent developments. Jargon phrases should be placed in quotations only for their first instance (or not at all).
- Done
- "This means that when the government..." Ew. The phrase "this means that..." should be used only in children's workbooks and material published by Britannica. We're trying to write a serious encyclopedia here. I suggest removing the offending phrase and connecting this sentence to the previous by using a colon.
- Done
- "It first went through the case law relating to government speech. It examined what it described as the "Conditions doctrine" where certain conditions on receiving federal funds were upheld or struck down. The article then turned to the Rust distinction." Don't give a play-by-play description of everything that was said in the article. Drop the "first this, then this" wording and simply summarize the main points.
- I think resolved. Done
- I think resolved.
Hope this helps! I won't be watching this page, so if you need clarification, please leave a note on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)