Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Not Promoted While I had high hopes for this article, even leaving it open a number of days longer than I had originally planned to, it fails to satisfy a number of the GA criteria, most importantly criterion 5. Stability issues aside, I still find some sentences to be confusingly worded, major issues not covered, neutrality suspect in some places, and some images to be not directly related to the topic. That being said, the article is close. I encourage further consensus building to iron out these issues. Once they're addressed, I hope a renomination will find it worthy of promotion. Thanks everyone for your work so far and keep at it! Wugapodes (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. May be a few days though before a full review. Wugapodes (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) I know I said it would be a few days but I have no control over my life so here I am with a full review way sooner than expected:[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

The citations at the end of the first paragraph of the Obergefell v. Kasich section should be distributed through the paragraph. While they likely all contributed to varying degrees, having four citations at the end of a sentence is a lot of clutter and, more importantly, makes it difficult to tell what information in the paragraph came from where
~~The image of Obergefell in the Obergefell v. Kasich section seems a little less than relevant as it's from the SCOTUS case rather than this state case. Is there a picture of just Obergefell?~~
See below Wugapodes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the courthouse also seems rather out of place. While it's the courthouse it took place in, the image is from 1938 and it shows. If I were looking at this page about a 2015 case, I'd wonder why a photo that looks so old is on the page (and I did think that).
I think my larger issue is the relevance of the courthouse images. See discussion below. Wugapodes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of Bourke v. Beshear is really confusing and I don't actually understand the issue in that case because of it.
"These arguments are not those of serious people." As much as I agree with the sentiment, the inclusion of the quote strikes me as a little non-neutral and should probably be removed or more critical commentary given.
"The justices' opinions in Obergefell are consistent with their opinions in Windsor." This should be directly cited to a source.
The Kentucky part of the compliance section is written such that it seems that these issues are still occuring. They may very well be but it should be made clear that they were ongoing as of a particular date (in the same way the maps are). Particularly of issue is "is now refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples...though neither county has of yet faced lawsuits" When prose is written in this contemporary style, it quickly becomes outdated as things progress and raises questions as to how up to date the information is.
~~What does the question mark on the one county mean on the Kentucky map? It should be clear in the caption~~
fixed the caption myself Wugapodes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion on the talk page about an ~~impact~~ analysis section, and while I see there's obvious consensus against it, I would ask you to consider things like the polygamy question (which Roberts and a number of sources have brought up) and especially how this case plays into V.L. v. E.L. which was influenced by the full faith and credit finding of this decision. I'm not saying there needs to be a full section, but that there has been some scholarship and developments that should be included.

"Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 28, 2015." Why does this have two citations?

"Media commentators highlighted the above-quoted passage from Kennedy's decision" This is a little too self-referential for me and should probably be modified.

Is there a main article for the compliance section? If so that should be linked
Not a GA thing, but WP:SEEALSO says that articles linked in the prose shouldn't be in the see also section, and a lot of the links in the section are linked in text. You may also want to look at the External Links section and think about which ones are actually essential.

Results[edit]

On Hold for 10 days pending revisions. Overall a very well written article on a very high profile article. It's a lot to work through, so I'm putting it on hold for a bit longer than usual. If more time is needed, let me know and I will be happy to extend. Wugapodes (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor comments[edit]

I will address your comments using your point numbers:

I, for one, am strongly put off by duplicate citations throughout a paragraph for discreet factoids, much preferring terminal citations. I won't be addressing this largely stylistic matter. Anyone else doing so should take great care, as it can get a bit tricky.
This is a matter of verifiability. If they all say the same thing, it's unclear why 4 are needed, but if they are offering different points, we need to attribute those points to where they came from so that others can find out. I'm not saying a citation for every line, there is a middle ground. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a matter of citation style. If the common convention is good enough for academia, and it is, then it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finding pictures that we can use for this article is rather difficult. This was the best I could find.
If they're the best plaintiff pictures, then that's fine Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See preceding point above. I couldn't find plaintiff pics, so I went for a sense of place, which I find much preferable to nothing. The courthouse was involved both at trial and on appeal.
I struggle to understand the relevance of these courthouse images though. What do they add? We have three pictures of concrete cubes. I don't look at those pictures and think "yes, I have a better understanding of this topic now". Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative....Strive for variety....Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To rephrase, a sense of place certainly does add to my ability to reconstruct and enjoy the past. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this one baffles me. What, specifically, is confusing to you? I don't see how the rather complicated procedural history could be conveyed substantially better without watering down the content and misrepresenting the history.
We spend a paragraph listing a number of children, only identified by initials and ages, to never speak of them again. No on is going to read this article and say "ah, yes, I remember 14 year old D.J.-C., we met for coffee once. he played an important role in this case. I wonder how his brother, T.J.-C. is doing, no the other T.J.-C.". It's not clear why they are even important as the question at issue is same sex marriages and full faith and credit of them. Unless these people are marrying their children, I don't understand why they're even parties to this case. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As these children, as designated above in your comment, were actual parties to the case(s), listed in the actual caption(s), they are certainly noteworthy. Readers need to know who the parties actually are or were. This is History 101. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The phrase or its sentiment had been something of a mantra in these cases across the country, and it is what the judge said. It is certainly appropriate to include it. NPOV doesn't come into play.
If it became a mantra, that could be included and discussed, but it isn't. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, just because the judge said it, doesn't mean it must be included and doesn't mean it is magically neutral. Further the way we present things contributes to how neutral they appear. See WP:IMPARTIAL The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you refer to is well beyond the scope of this section of the article. The phrase is certainly noteworthy. It need only be quoted. And quoting a judge's decision is certainly not "to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute." Those "participants" would be the parties to the case, along with their adherents. Judges are not "participants"; they are construed, rightly or wrongly, as objective third parties charged with adjudicating the controversies before them. The phrase is fine as it is. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This did always seem a bit fishy, and I have been unable to find it in the nearby cited source now. Perhaps it should simply be deleted, or clarified, or properly sourced. I'll see if I get some time to do so, which I might not in the foreseeable future.
Any of those options are fine, and you don't have to be the one to do it. I'll add a cn tag. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This whole compliance matter is a bit nebulous. The reporting seems incomplete and now rather abandoned. I certainly won't have the time to attempt to sort it all out any time soon. Others will have to step in here.
I would agree. If it seems largely abandoned, the section should probably be revised to make it seem less immediate. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question mark means exactly what one would suppose it does, that the matter is unclear. However, these maps are produced and maintained by others for another article, and their knowledge of the state of the matter is rather questionable, to be frank. These maps are quite beyond my technical capabilities, so others would have to step in here, too.
I think just adjusting the caption is sufficient. I'll probably do that myself. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Alabama map seems plain wrong. For one, the math doesn't add up. As I said, I can't fix this problem. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What "consensus"? If you'll recall, I was strongly opposed to such a section at the time. I continue strongly to believe that the time is not yet ripe for "scholarship." A "subsequent developments" (i.e., subsequent case law) section, on the other hand, would be a very different matter, even if it would currently tend toward brevity. I, however, will have no time to contribute substantively to it. In fact, I've been thinking the article needs a "historical background" section (2-3 paragraphs, tops) to detail both the post-Windsor context of the case and the early history beginning in the early 70s. Though I collected appropriate sources for the section months ago now, I won't have time to draft it any time soon. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus against an "Analysis" section. I wasn't clear on that, my apologies. But I do believe the polygamy response is significant. Not only did Roberts bring it up in his dissent, it has been covered and discussed by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a number of academic sources already on the talk page. And there has been at least one development at the Court in V.L. v. E.L. which (though didn't cite Obergefell) is part of the thread of same-sex rights at the Court. Others like Matter of Leyton (slip op., NY: Appellate Div. 106) ("[Obergefell]does not compel a retroactive declaration that the "Commitment Ceremony" entered into by decedent and Hunter in 2002, when same-sex marriage was not recognized under New York law, was a legally valid marriage").
As I said, a "subsequent developments" section would be fine, I just won't be able to contribute any time soon. I feel strongly that we shouldn't go near the polygamy issue, beyond pointing out that Roberts mentioned it, as the article already does. At this point, it's deeply mired in the rhetoric of the moment and defamatory history. It's hardly what I would call suitably academic. Talk about "to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute"! I also don't find the scholarship sufficiently advanced and non-obvious to justify an analysis section at this time. We need a few thoughtful books to come out first, I think. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that a historical background section would be useful, though, and maybe this is just me, the topic is somewhat covered in discussing the opinion. Obviously it would be good to have such a section (definitely for FA), but I think the topic is covered enough as is for GA.

Anyway, thanks Antinoos69 for your input! Hopefully others will be able to get to the things you can't. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antinoos69: I did a quick check by Heinonline and found that there are 406 law journal (peer-reviewed) articles on this case right now. The number does not include magazine, newspaper, etc. "opinions." If you don't want analysis, it has to be for a reason other than lack of "ripeness." AnthroMimus (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comma fight[edit]

Hold off on GA consideration until the "Comma fight" discussed on the talk page is resolved. There are ownership issues and a slow-moving edit war. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find your characterization grossly inaccurate, gratuitous, and offensive. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit history seems to indicate that the article is not stable at the present time, and thus not eligible for GA status unless the frequent edit disagreements have clearly subsided before the GA review concludes. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Edits like this one in the article, and this one on the talk page don't inspire confidence in the article's stability. It is of course up to the original reviewer, but it looks to me like criterion 5 is not currently being fulfilled... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

I left it open a few days longer than planned to see if things calmed down before extending the hold period so more substantial things could be addressed. I'm not confident that the article is presently stable, so don't see much point in dragging this out. Hopefully the article can reach stability, the substantial issues I raised resolved, and the article be renominated. I have closed the review as Not Promoted. Keep up the hard work, and I think it will pass in time. Wugapodes (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.