Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/GA1

GA Review

My first impression was that the opening sentence ("The demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States have been raised as an issue in various contexts over the last century") should be a little more definitive of the topic itself rather than just referencing contexts in which it has been raised (and why over just the last century?) Otherwise, the article seems generally sound.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will be starting the GAN evaluation shortly. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded and hopefully clarified that a bit. Perhaps the "Introduction" should be recast as the opening section. bd2412 T 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question regarding a couple of the citations. They refer to: Andrew Kaufman, Cardozo (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000) at 89. What does "at 89" mean? Is it supposed to be part of the title, a page number, or something else? Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be page numbers, which I have now corrected (as well as the date). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I have e-mailed you a related article I ran across in 2006 in The Economist. Please don't feel compelled to use it in the article; I sent it over merely as an enjoyable read. Majoreditor (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm close to completing my initial review. I'll post results no later than Saturday. (Sorry for the delay; I have some off-wiki developments.) Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit about the Thomas poverty claim - it's precious hard to find economic background on the other Justices, except to say their parents' occupations. bd2412 T 07:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the article is quite nice. You've taken an interesting topic and build a respectable article which is free of POV, well-structured and quite readable. Some sections are thin; that will be an issue should you want to develop this to FA-class.

I'm placing the nomination on hold to give you time to address some issues. Please see below for details.

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Passable, but the prose could be sharper, and the lead need to be expanded a bit more to provide a fuller summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. I've done some copyediting; I'll give the article a final look-over tomorrow to see if there's anything I missed.

2. Factually accurate?: Almost there. On hold, pending cleanup of {{fact}} tag

I have provided a citation for the remaining {{fact}} tag. bd2412 T 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: The article needs some additional work. You've ensured that the article touches upon all major demographic factors, and I like the way you've arranged the sections. However, the ethnic/racial and gender sections say little on public thoughts and reception regarding gender and ethnic/racial diversity.

I'll see what I can find to address this. bd2412 T 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues. You've done a good job with presenting the material in a NPOV.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Thank you for your work so far. Majoreditor (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I will drop a note as soon as I resolve the above issues - thanks! bd2412 T 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How's it coming along? Majoreditor (talk)

Haven't had time to do the research yet, but I will by the end of this week. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a few notes on public opinion derived from polls. bd2412 T 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice enhancements to the article.

I will be on vacation for a week starting tomorrow.

Just one other thought. While I think that the lead is a fairly good ecapsulation of the article, others may find it a tad bit brief. You may wish to enhance it. Majoreditor (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep on it. Thanks again. bd2412 T 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to pass this article. Most of the major issues raised above appear to have been dealt with. IMO, this article meets the GA criteria. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)