Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Alabama v. North Carolina/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Alabama v. North Carolina

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to get some feedback about the general article. I'm thinking about nominating it for GA, and this is the first article I've really written. All feedback/constructive criticism is welcome.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, ok.....will jot some notes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. Would it be possible to bold the term "Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact" or similar? Since, I can't imagine that would ever get it's own article. It might be worth going more into detail about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Boldface and see if you can shoehorn it into one of those....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber,   Done I created a redirect from Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Colin M
  • It arose from a disagreement between the state of North Carolina and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact over the funding for the project. What is "the project"? Is it the "Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact"? I didn't find that clear the first time I read it. I think you need to briefly describe the Compact the first time it's named.
  • I'm skeptical of the capitalization of "Commission" throughout
  • The discussion of the oral arguments and decision seems surprisingly brief. There's only one short sentence about the oral arguments. I would try to give more clarity about what topics the justices asked questions about. It might also be worth mentioning who was representing each side during oral arguments. As for the decision, I would at least expect some mention of how the justices split (in terms of concurrences and dissents), and who wrote the majority opinion. I think you could go into more detail about how the decision was reached, possibly including some quotes from the majority opinion. It may also be worth summarizing the dissenting opinions.
  • Is there anything worth adding about the legacy of the case? Did it establish or overturn any important precedents? Has it been cited since in similar cases?

-Colin M (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: I addressed your first point (I think). I have no strong attachment to the capitalization of Commision, but why exactly are you skeptical of it? I'll try to add more about the oral arguments, decision, and aftermath. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word first appears in this sentence: It was run by a Commission, which was tasked.... There, and in all subsequent uses, it seems like it's being used as a common noun, in which case capitalizing does not make sense. It could make sense to capitalize it it's being used as an abbreviated form of a particular named entity (e.g. 'The Radioactive Waste Management Commission' or whatever), but no such entity is named in the article. And even then, I'd want to think about it some more and double-check the WP:MOS. For example, I checked the article on the 9/11 Commission and it mostly doesn't capitalize commission when it appears alone. Same with the word organization in the articles on UNESCO and World Health Organization. Colin M (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin M:   Done #2 (C -> c) --DannyS712 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Alabama_v._North_Carolina/archive1&oldid=897008173"