# Talk:William Orrick III

Please remove "overstepped his office when he" from both paragraphs below. That is a legal determination that has not been made and this language is motivated by partisan concerns.
On Friday, July 31, 2015 Judge Orrick overstepped his office when he blocked the release of videos of Planned Parenthood, granting the injunction requested by the National Abortion Federation.
On April 25, 2017, Judge Orrick overstepped his office when he blocked a Trump administration executive order to withhold funding from sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities, saying Trump had no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending. 144.121.71.130 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Looks like Oshwah handled this. TJRC (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it definitely needed to be removed from those sentences. They added a definite implication of bias and the publishing of content not reflected in a neutral viewpoint. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)  23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Orrick III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Will review shortly Eddie891  Talk Work  11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments
Image could use a caption (i.e. Orrick in YEAR)?
"Upon returning to San Francisco, he chose not to join Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, the law firm co-founded by his grandfather William Orrick Sr.," I think this could flow more naturally as "Upon returning to San Fransisco, he chose not to join the law firm co-founded by his grandfather William Orrick Sr., Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP." because why does it matter that he didn't join it? Not because it was a prominent law firm, but instead because his grandfather was involved in it?
"He served as head of DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation" DOJ should be spelled out, cannot assume the reader knows what it means
"For a 10-month period during the lengthy nomination/confirmation process" a little unclear what the lengthy nomination/confirmation process was for, given that you previously say "He served as head" -> could be taken to mean the nomination process was after or before serving.
"The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Orrick "well qualified" for the judgeship (the committee's highest rating)" somewhat unclear to the lay-reader why it matters what the ABA's committee rates him
"reported it to the floor on August 2, 2012" I think reporting to the floor is a bit congress-ese, would it be possible to simplify or link?
"The confirmation vote was again mostly on party lines," it isn't clearly stated that the other one was on party lines, only implied?
"to the environment and human health, particularly in the Marina District and Fisherman's Wharf neighborhoods)." where exactly does this parenthesis start?
Characteristic good work, that's it from a first pass. Most are relatively subjective suggestions, feel free to discuss/ask for clarification on any. Eddie891  Talk Work  00:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, excellent comments, as usual. I've made some edits on each of your points — how does this look? Neutralitytalk 01:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a note that I've seen this and will revisit soon Eddie891  Talk Work  12:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
prose looks good now Eddie891  Talk Work  00:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Earwigs suggests no copyvio Eddie891  Talk Work  00:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality just a few sourcing comments from my spot check:
I don't see "The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Orrick's nomination on July 11, 2012," cited in source 11
source #9 doesn't say he was the head but the supervisor of the Office of Immigration Litigation. I think that's a distinction worth making?
I'd consider "The confirmation vote was mostly on party lines, with three Republican Senators—Flake, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski—joining all Democrats in voting to confirm Orrick" too close to the source which says "The vote was 56-41, largely along party lines. Three Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Democrats in voting for confirmation." While recognizing WP:LIMITED, I think you could stand to rephrase this.
"fined them $200,000" technically it's nearly or almost $200,000
I don't see "and on January 2, 2013, his nomination was returned to the President, due to the adjournment sine die of the Senate. " in the sourcing given
I may well have missed something, and most of my comments are technicalities, so I'm not overly concerned about quality of sourcing Eddie891  Talk Work  00:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, thanks. I've made some edits on each point. Neutralitytalk 00:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, I'm fine with your removing the archive-urls, but the reason I ran the bot in the first place was that reference #1 turns up a 404 error for me. That needs to be fixed Eddie891  Talk Work  20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Otherwise I'm fine with the status of the article Eddie891  Talk Work  20:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891 - Makes total sense - I found a live link for ref 1 and replaced the deadlink. Neutralitytalk 21:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality, Ok, this article now meets the GA criteria, and I'm happy to pass. Nice work! Eddie891  Talk Work  23:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)