Talk:Orly Taitz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N My initial review is complete, and I made a few minor fixes to the article. I normally prefer to hold an article to give the editors a chance to make fixes, but unfortunately this article is not really close, and has too many issues to work out. Aaron north (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not mention her run for CA Sec. of State or anything about media attention.
I understand that Orly Taitz is a controversial public figure and so NPOV can be an important concern. So, with that in mind, is it relevant that the law school she graduated from is not accredited? That may sound important on the surface, but in practice if you were allowed to sit for the bar, you pass the bar, and you have experience practicing as a lawyer, no one usually cares about your law school unless you want to be a law school professor, are being appointed as a judge, or are being nominated for something. If it is not relevant, then it doesn't serve a useful purpose other than to show her in an unfavorable light.
I do not believe that the use of the list style under "Taitz's claims regarding Barack Obama" and "Taitz's other claims" would be appropriate for a GA-class article in this case. Most, if not all of her commentary and lawsuits have been written about, these sections should probably be written prose.
All of those claims under "Taitz's claims regarding Barack Obama" need inline citations.
Under "Legal Cases" (Keyes v Bowen is fine):
- In Lightfoot v Bowen, we need something explaining the rationale for why Taitz wanted to stop the certification of California's 2008 election results. I assume it is because of the birther conspiracy theory, but it isn't clear in the article.
- In Barnett v Obama, we need more information. We know who is being sued, but why? What is the argument? Also, those criticisms of Taitz from the judge are pretty strong, I think we probably need to add a brief quote on at least one of those criticisms, while being careful not to give undo weight.
- In Cook v Good, we need sources for the dismissed appeal to the 11th and the dismissal of the lawsuit against Simtech.

I've cleaned up MOST of these problems. Cook v. Good is more difficult because for some reason the 11th Circuit's order has disappeared. I'll have to work on that one later.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "Activities in Israel" does deserve its own section, then it needs to be expanded to describe what her views are, and any support or challenge she may have received because of them.
I'm a little confused by the first sentence under her candidacy for CA Secretary of State. How do you "qualify to run", don't you just run? If we're just talking about routine paperwork, then we can just simply say she ran for the republican party's nomination for CA sec. of state. Also, after the first paragraph we seem to have 3 standalone sentences, it could probably be re-written as prose.

To run for office in California, a potential candidate has to fulfill statutory requirements that are spelled out on the California Secretary of State's website (under the Elections tab).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentences under "in the media", was that really "widely-discussed"? I cant find much reported by the media, and this is the first I heard of it. I would probably drop "widely-discussed"

What about quick fail guideline #5 "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." it seems to me that until the litigation reaches a conclusion, this article will require constant attention with possible fluctuation in quality. Racepacket (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but I think this is headed for a quickfail anyway on the merits because the article has too many other problems. I figured I would leave some helpful suggestions to improve the article while I'm here. Aaron north (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria.

none really, this article has too many basic issues to work out before going beyond the GA criteria.

Not sure where to put this, but a point of clarification. You removed the 22 lawsuits she was in because it was not surprising because she's an attorney and because it wasn't relevant. The lawsuits, as the article made clear, were before she was an attorney - she was a litigant, either a plaintiff or a defendant. I think the point was to show that she either was litigious (plaintiff) or doing questionable things (defendant). Most people aren't involved in that many lawsuits. So, your "surprising" is inaccurate because it had nothing to do with her subsequent legal practice. However, I agree that it's not relevant UNLESS more is made of it - in other words, just saying it without expanding on it wouldn't be enough, so I agree with the removal. I also think it's only tangential to the article. Therefore, I don't think expansion would be warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]