# Talk:Trinsey v. Pennsylvania

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trinsey v. Pennsylvania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Monty845 (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going start the review for this article. Monty845 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
The prose is generally of good quality, but I have noted a few places below where the prose is confusing.  Done
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
The lead needs a bit of work to comply with WP:LEAD, the remaining MoS standards are met.  Done
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
There is a quotation missing a cite.  Done
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The Article is generally of good quality, none of the changes required to meet the GA criteria should be very hard to make.
In my opinion, the article now passes all of the good article criteria. Monty845 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


### Suggestions for improvement
The following are my suggestions for improvement of the article, some of them are beyond the criteria for a good article, those that are are labeled as (not a GA issue) are strictly optional and represent my personal opinion/preference:
Lead

"...H. John Heinz III, the US Senator from Pennsylvania" - referring to him as "the" US Senator from Pennsylvania may confuse some readers. While in some circles it is customary to refer to senators that way, I think for a more general audience, it should be rephrased so that it is clear there isn't just one Senator from the state at a time. (not a GA issue, as its not really wrong)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The sentence about the Governor being delegated the authority to appoint a temporary replacement pending the special election, is needed in the lead only so far as the statute delegating the authority also contained the no primaries rule, could it be reworked to focus on the no primaries rule, while reducing the extra information? (Criteria 1 - WP:LEAD)
Rephrased it; take a look? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That part of the rephrase looks good. Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"...confirming this delegation." seems awkward, perhaps "making such a delegation" if the sentence stays? (not a GA issue)
Rephrased it; take a look? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It still doesn't seem quite right, the 17th amendment gave the legislature the authority to make the delegation, when the legislature made the delegation in the statute, I don't think the statute was really "affirming" the authority it had from the amendment, so much as exercising it. Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Try now? Ironholds (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done Looks good now. Monty845 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"Writ" is specialized terminology that may not be accessible to all readers, at least in the lead, can you substitute a more common term? (Criteria 1 - WP:LEAD)
Rephrased it; take a look? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"...statute necessitated the strict scrutiny approach,..." seems awkward, and may be confusing. It is not so much the statute that required strict scrutiny  be applied, as it was precedent requiring that the strict scrutiny review be applied to the statute. (Criteria 1 - Prose confusing/potentially misleading)
It's more about the nature of the statute - it implied a right, and an important one. Ergo, every violation of that right must be scrutinised. I could rephrase as "subject matter of the statute" if that'd help? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, it would then read "After deciding that the subject matter of the statute necessitated the..."? That would resolve my concern. Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Now done. Ironholds (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence of the lead should either omit "with one suggesting that the "substantial state interests" test used in Valenti v. Rockefeller would be more appropriate." or it needs a citation.  I'm not sure if it is really needed in the lead, but if it stays, it is so specific an assertion that it should be cited. (Criteria 1 - WP:LEAD) 
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
In the sentence "Under the Seventeenth Amendment, state legislatures may give the Governor the power to appoint an official to fill temporarily vacant Senate seats until a special election can be held..." 'an official' is singular and I think it conflicts with the plural 'Senate seats' (New comment) Monty845 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Background

Same comment about refering to him as "The US Senator" (not a GA issue)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Second sentence: "...the legislature of each state has the power to delegate their authority to the governor,..." What authority? (Criteria 1 - confusing prose)
Rephrased it; take a look? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it should say (the/a) "vacant seat", but otherwise the rephrase looks good. Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Where, sorry? Ironholds (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"...the legislature of each state has the power to permit the governor to fill the seat until a special election can be held." While it is implied that the seat is the one vacated by the deceased Senator, I think it would add clarity if it was called the "vacant seat" instead of just the seat. Monty845 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Second paragraph: "the terms of the statute (and absence of a requirement for primaries) was also held to infringe " at this point, we are talking about the claim by Trinsey, using "held" doesn't seem appropriate there. Perhaps change it to "claimed" or "argued"? (not a GA issue)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Judgment

Identify the judge at the trial court level. (not a GA issue)
It's not given in the secondary sources, I'm afraid. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"After weighing up the evidence presented" I'm used to seeing that phrase without up in it, "weighing the evidence". (not a GA issue)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Quote at the start of paragraph 2 lacks a citation. (Criteria 2 - all direct quotes need citations)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
First sentence of paragraph 2 is hard to follow, considering splitting it into two sentences. (Criteria 1 - Prose, very awkwardly phrased)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Identify the members of the 3rd circuit panel that heard the case in the text of the article, in addition to the infobox. (not a GA issue)
Try now? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
When I looked at the fix, I noticed Appeal in Court of Appeal was singular, I missed it on my first pass, but I think it should be Court of Appeals. Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Now fixed. Ironholds (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Significance

Was there any evidence of lasting significance outside of the law review circuit? (not a GA issue)
Not really, except for its role in interpreting the 17th Amendment.
This section refers to the "Court of Appeal", I think even when referring to a single court, it should be "Court of Appeals". (new issue) Monty845 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Misc

Can you find an external link to the circuit court decision? Not everyone will know what to do with the case citation in the infobox. (not a GA issue)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
There are very few incoming links from article space. (not a GA issue)
Indeed; not a particularly important case, except from a 17th amendment perspective. Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to respond to individual points above. Monty845 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Article now meets the GA criteria. Monty845 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for such a thorough review :). Ironholds (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)