Talk:Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Thanks for your work on this article! Unfortunately it's not ready for Good Article status right now, but I hope this review gives you the feedback needed to improve the article. Feel free to come back for another review once you've incorporated these suggestions.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The article could go through some copyediting to improve readability and conciseness.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Too much reliance on transcripts, briefs, and other documents related to the case. These are considered primary sources, and should not form the basis of the article's commentary on the case. See WP:PRIMARY.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Synthesis of information coming from primary sources is considered original research. See WP:PRIMARY.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Add more information on reactions from the legal community or the mainstream media, practical effects going forward, etc. You somewhat address this in the lead section, but you can elaborate more in the rest of the article.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The "Supreme Court" section appears too long and goes into a lot of detail. Once you switch from using primary sources to secondary sources, you'll have a better sense of what information is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Also keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT requires you to avoid giving undue weight to information not contained in reliable sources. Also see WP:SS for tips on how long the article should be.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Edge3 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)