# Talk:Navarette v. California

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prado Navarette v. California/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


### Opening statement
I am taking on this article for a GA review. I hope to get this review done by end of this week, or possibly earlier if time permits. It may be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.
Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.
As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.


### Comments
General punctuation comment: I would add a few commas to perfect the punctuation of the article.  I am happy to do that myself as part of this review - please just let me know if you are okay with that course of action. I will therefore not point out all instances of where commas are needed.
Feel free to add commas wherever you think it's appropriate. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you - I will get to it by Monday. --Concertmusic (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Infobox
Punctuation: The Holding section looks like it could use a period at the end of the sentence in that section.
I added a period at the end of the sentence per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Lead
Link issue: The link to https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/___/ in the first sentence does not appear to work for me - please review. You could try to use scite instead of ussc in that spot, depending on what you are trying to accomplish.
To be honest, I never should have used the template in the first place. Because the article has not yet been published in the United States Reports, there is no page to which the template can link. I am removing the template entirely, but I will add it back in a year or two when the case is officially published. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Making the use of "that" consistent throughout the article. You will find several more suggestions along the same lines below: I would add "that" to the following sentence as shown: "At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution...".
In legal writing, you are often tasked with writing documents that fit as many words as possible within a limit page range (or limited word count). One of the natural consequences of this is that the word "that" often gets dropped; it is often the case that the word would make the sentence clearer, but clarity is sacrificed for the sake of efficiency. I see that the word "that" has been dropped in several important places in this article, and I appreciate your eye for detail! I'll be sure to add it back according to your suggestions in this review. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Fourth Amendment searches and seizures based on anonymous tips
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "Although officers in Gates did not personally witness any criminal activity, the Supreme Court held that the anonymous tip in question was reliable..."
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Clarification request: Could you very briefly add a definition of "close case", if that is possible? If not possible in a few words, would you consider creating a stub article and wikilinking?
I'm working on an article about the concept of a close case, and I hope to get it up later this weekend. Once it's finished, I'll add a wikilink. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Arrest and Trial of Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "The caller stated that the truck was last seen heading southbound...".
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "Officers pulled over the vehicle and discovered that Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette..."
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Add the word "to" as shown: "Lorenzo and Jose appealed again to the Supreme Court of California..."
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference correction: Reference 37 is broken - please review and correct.
Some cases that have recently been added to the United States Reports are not yet accessible via the citation templates. I went ahead and removed the link so that readers aren't misdirected by the citation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Actually, it looks like the templates don't support citations to opinions dissenting from the denial of writs of certiorari. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference question: For all of the referenced material for Navarette, couldn't this link be used to provide the reader access to the referenced material? I used it to cross-check these references with good success: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/12-9490/ I may actually suggest to use that link for the broken link in the very first sentence, as well as adding it to External Links, and possibly even as a link in the Infobox with Docket No. (which you don't have in this article, but which you provide in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, and which I have read as well.
I discovered that I never actually included a full citation to the slip opinion in the references. You will now see that the first reference includes a full citation to the slip opinion with a link to the Supreme Court's PDF of the slip opinion. I also added links to the slip opinion and to the justia link in the "external links" section. I also added the docket number to the infobox. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Opinion of the Court
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "Although he acknowledged that this was a "close case", Justice Thomas...".
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "In light of the facts described in the 911 call, Justice Thomas argued that the reckless driving described in the 911 call...".
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's opinion was a "freedom-destroying cocktail."
I added this missing word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "While he admitted 911 calls are, in fact, easily traceable, Justice Scalia argued that there was no evidence the 911 caller knew...".
I added this missing word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference correction request: I think that Reference 52 should point to Navarette, slip op. at 3 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It currently points at 2.
I updated the two citations; they now cite p.3. Good catch! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "He argued that the general details provided in this case's 911 call were unreliable because...".
I added this missing word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference correction request: I think that Reference 53 should point to Navarette, slip op. at 4 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It currently points at 3.
If you are talking about Justice Scalia's argument that there was no evidence the car was run off the road, I cited to p.3 because it is on that page that Justice Scalia wrote: "The claim to 'eyewitness knowledge' of being run off the road supports not at all its veracity." However, I changed the citation to p.3-4 because J. Scalia also argued on p.4 that the caller may have embellished their story. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "Likewise, Justice Scalia argued that there was no evidence that the report of being run off the road was actually true."
I added this missing word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "Justice Scalia also criticized the majority's conclusion that the tip provided reasonable suspicion that Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette were driving while drunk...".
I added this missing word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference correction request: I think that Reference 54 should point to Navarette, slip op. at 6-7 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It currently points at 6 only.
Indeed, the citation should have been to pages 6-7. I have updated the citation accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Subsequent developments
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "Other courts interpreting Navarette have held that the case established that less reliability is required when anonymous tips report "serious crime[s] or potential danger".
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Immediate reactions
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "...the Harvard Law Review suggested that "Navarette may add...".
I added the missing word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "Paul Kleven, attorney for Lorenzo and Jose Prado Navarette, said that the ruling "makes it easier...".
I added the missing word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Scholarly analysis
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "...on the subject of anonymous tips and some have argued that the case signifies a "dilution" of the Fourth...".
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Take off "s" from "analysts" to make singular: "One analysts argued that this departure...".
I removed the "s." Good catch! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "These commentators suggest that this departure "increases the risk of fabricated tips."
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggested re-wording: This sentence appears a little awkward: "Some analysts have also observed that the Court's opinion left open several unanswered questions...". How about "Some analysts have also observed that the Court's opinion left several questions unanswered..."?
I edited the sentence per your suggestion; it sounds much better now. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
CE: Addition of "that", as shown: "and that the Court "missed an opportunity to give lower courts some much needed guidance."
I added the word per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


### Summary
This is a thoroughly researched, very well-written, and engaging review of an important case. The comments above point out a few minor items, which appear to be easily correctable. I look forward to working with the author to get this article to GA very soon. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Concertmusic: First and foremost, I want to thank you for this incredibly detailed and extremely helpful review. And thank you for the kind words about the article! I will begin going through these points within the next 24 hours, and I hope that to have all improvements wrapped-up no later than 48 hours from now. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: My pleasure. FYI - I will be offline for about 10 days starting on Friday of next week, but it sounds as though that won't be an issue. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Concertmusic: I think I have addressed all of the points above. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do. Thanks agains for your fantastic review, and I hope you are enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: Thank you for the prompt and detailed attention to my review comments! Everything above has been carefully reviewed and addressed, and it is my pleasure to promote this article to GA status! --Concertmusic (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


### Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without 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: 

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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: