Talk:Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

How about using {{Italic title}}?

"While the Supreme Court would review this same case"->"While the Supreme Court would reconsider this same case"

"Brentwood has been highly"->"Brentwood was highly"

"In 1997 TSSAA investigated rumors"->"In 1997, TSSAA investigated rumors"

"Supreme Court granted review of the case"->"Supreme Court granted certiorari of the case"

"they were utilizing state police power"->"it was utilizing state police power"

"A second trial on this factor ->"A second District Court trial on this factor"

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
How could you ever cite to the syllabus (fn. 4) as a reliable source?

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

You did not discuss the First Amendment claim in either the "Background" or "Opinion of the Court" sections. Background mentions the First Amendment claim, but does not describe it.

If the 1st Amendment was not addressed in this opinion, it should probably be deleted from the infobox.

Do you want to explain that the case drew a number of amici briefs from a wide variety of entities, and the positions that they took?

Explain that the state board of education approved the TSSAA's rules and reserved the right to review future changes to the rules.

Explain that Brentwood sued under the Civil Rights Law Section 1983. That claim made this case important as a Civil Rights precedent, because the court is interpreting "state action" for both 14 Amendment and §1983 purposes.

Please add 42 USC §1983 to the laws applied line of the infobox.

State that TSSAA employees are covered by the state pension plan.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
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:
This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all concerns/comments raised above. Please tell me if anything else needs to be changed/altered/added. I appreciate your assistance in helping me to improve the article. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about amici?

Explain the § 1983 claim and the "state action" test applied to both 1983 and 14 amendment claims. Racepacket (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 13 reading

"became important in civil suit jurisprudence." - should this be civil rights jurisprudence?
"their Due Process rights" - why capitalize?
"there were no hearings to determine the validity of the claim that they inappropriately recruited football players." - was the argument that there must be an evidentiary hearing or just a paper hearing?
Can we add cites to the district court , two Court of Appeals decisions and the second Supreme Court decision? (Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy, 551 U.S. 291)

The nominator has not participated in Wikipedia since March 13, the date of my follow up comments. I have reached out to him without a response, so I am respectfully failing the article, with the hope that he comes back, considers the concerns noted, and renominates after revising the article. I am sorry that it did not work out. Racepacket (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]