Wikipedia:Peer review/Antonin Scalia/archive1

Antonin Scalia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I am planning to nom it for FA and would like feedback. While I did enter the WikiCup, I am not competing seriously in it. Many thanks. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Interesting but quite tough reading. Looks like a longish haul, so I will post comments in segments:-

• A couple of images lack alt text
• Early life
  • "His father, Salvatore Eugene Scalia, was an immigrant from Sicily who was then a graduate student and clerk..." I believe that "then" means when Antonin was born, but this needs clarifying, e.g. "...who at the time of his son's birth was..." etc
  • "the former Catherine Panaro" sounds as though she was notable as Catherine Panaro, so better say "formerly Catherine Panaro"
  • Repetition: the word "school" occurs three times in the sentence beginning "After completing..." Perhaps Xavier could become "a Jesuit establishment"?
  • The narrative needs a sentence or half-sentence to cover a gap between his graduating from Xavier and his graduating from Georgetown University. We should be told when he went to Georgetown before being told that he graduated from there.
• Legal career
  • "He moved his family to Charlottesville, Virginia..." Sudden appearance of a "family" – there should be some prior indication of their existence.
  • Also, as written it reads as though his professorship was the result of his moving to Charlottesville, when the reverse is presumably the case.
  • Second paragraph: the first "he" needs to be "Scalia"
  • "Scalia's position for the government on behalf of the petitioner corporation prevailed." Could this sentence be rewritten for the benefit of us non-lawyers?
• Judge and nominee
  • Why "As early as 1985" rather than "In 1985"? In what sense was 1985 "early"?
  • "...to be considered if there was a vacancy." Need to clarify this refers to a Supreme Court vacancy.
  • "Reagan first decided to nominate Rehnquist, then an associate justice, to become Chief Justice, meaning that Reagan would also have to choose a nominee to fill Rehnquist's seat as associate justice." Rather heavy-footed, and unclear to those without knowledge of these procedures. Also, as this is the first mention of Renquist in the text (as distinct from the lead) he should be properly described. Try: "Reagan decided to nominate William Rehnquist, then an associate justice, to become Chief Justice. This meant that Reagan could choose a nominee to fill Rehnquist's seat as associate justice."
  • I'm a bit nonplussed by the information that candidates' relative smoking habits are central to their appointment or otherwise to the Supreme Court. Was this really the decisive factor that secured Scalia the nomination – he smoked less than Bork?
• Judicial performance
  • "Lockstep" is an American term; I've no idea what it means - alternately, at the same time, or whatever?
  • "written large number of opinions." An indefinite article missing?
  • Successive sentences start "Scalia has, from the start of his career on the Supreme Court..." and "Since Scalia came to the Court..." This sounds repetitive; suggest rephrase
  • I apologise for my non-legal ignorance, but what respectively are "concurring" and "dissenting" opinions. Concurring with what, and dissenting from what?
  • As Scalia's opinions are apparently so entertaining, it's a pity we don't get a direct quote from one (or perhaps we do later in the article).
  • "...the opinion is assigned by the senior justice in the majority," Explanation required for non-legals.
  • In relation to Scalia's "warm relationship" with Ruth Bader Ginsburg it might be worthwhile noting that Ginsburg's orientation is liberal.
• Statutory and constitutional interpretation
  • "...as it would have been understood to mean when they were adopted." An "it" and "they" conflict.
  • "panned" is a bit informal, even slangy
  • It's not clear to me what Scalia's opinion on the Heller case was. Was it that the original meaning of the Second Amendment did allow non-military individuals to own guns, or that it didn't? What "faux originalism" was Posner referring to?
  • Confused again: what is "corporate speech"?

To be continued. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, which all look excellent. I will deal with them in the next couple of days. This is very helpful, the comments of a well-informed non-American layperson. You do get quite a few Scalia opinion quotes, btw. Wait and see. This part is really an introduction to his jurisprudential viewpoints.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. I did links for concurring and dissenting opinions, as explanations I think would be too long inline. The others are all covered.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

• Separation of powers
  • "Scalia authored a thirty-page draft dissent, which surprised Justice Harry Blackmun for its emotional content and which Blackmun felt could be cut down to ten pages if Scalia omitted "the screaming"." This is the second use in a couple of lines of the awkward verb form "authored". The sentence reads better, I think, as "Scalia's thirty-page draft dissent surprised Justice Harry Blackmun for its emotional content; Blackmun felt it could be cut down to ten pages if Scalia omitted "the screaming"."
  • "Blackmun felt ... Scalia felt" - repetitive language again. Perhaps "Scalia believed..."
  • "whose members" in first line of 2nd para reads ambiguously. Perhaps remove the comma after "Judicial Branch", or perhaps slight reworking.
  • "Eight justices joined in the majority opinion written by Blackmun." But what was the majority opinion - for or against the petition?
  • What is an appropriations bill? Is it what in the UK we call a "money bill" - one which deals with the raising or spending of money?
• "different than" → "different from"
• Detainee cases
  • What does "finding jurisdiction" mean in layman's language?
  • "...actions by Congress inadequate to detain Hamdi..." Is "actions" the best word here? And shouldn't it be "inadequate to justify detaining Hamdi"?
  • "recuse": I know what it means, but it's not a common term so perhaps use a more recognisable form?
• Federalism
  • "Scalia wrote for the Court in finding the part of the statute which imposed those duties unconstitutional as violating the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states and to the people those powers not granted to the Federal Government." The meaning of the first part of this sentence is obscure: "wrote for the court in finding"?
  • Words such as "contratextualist" take a bit of working out. It would be more user-friendly to replace it with an explanatory phrase.
• Abortion
  • What in legal terms does "strike down" mean? Does it mean repeal, or reverse, or declare unconstitutional, or some other precise meaning?
  • "Scalia did not have to wait long for Stenberg to be overruled" - this rather personalises the issue. Perhaps the sentence should begin "In 2007..."

Breaking off again, more to come. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those things have been done, although I varied from your suggested solutions a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately a computer breakdown prevents me from continuing the review for the moment. If it's still open in a few days' time I will return and complete. Apologies Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I will just push it ahead to FAC and you can add comments there or on the talk page. Many thanks for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)