Talk:People v. Aguilar

People v. Aguilar has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 2, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:People v. Aguilar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: GregJackP

I will look over this article carefully and begin my review in the next few days. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...

This article is quite interesting, but it suffers from a number of prose issues. Both I (and another user) made several copy-edits... Not being a legal expert, however, I was hesitant to change wording in many places. (I wouldn't want to accidentally introduce an inaccuracy.) Here are some issues I found that should be addressed.

The first paragraph is one long sentence. It should be broken up into about three sentences. Would it be acceptable to start it like this? "...was an Illinois Supreme Court case which determined whether the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) statutes were proper, or whether they violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment". Then you could specify the ruling in subsequent sentences.

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence mentions Aguilar, but he is not introduced until the second paragraph.

Done, changed wording of first sentence. GregJackP Boomer! 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a reader who hasn't heard of AUUF, it sounds like the article is suggesting that my "use of a weapon" violates someone's rights, but of course that's not what is meant. For this reason, it would be better to refer to "the AUUF statute" when discussing whether AUUF violates someone's rights.

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In the meantime" is unclear in the lead, but I don't know enough about court terminology to know a better wording that I'm sure is accurate. "Before the Illinois Supreme Court could decide the issue"? "While the appeal was still being processed"?

Done, used more precise language. GregJackP Boomer! 19:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. But I changed "During the pendency of Aguilar's appeal" to "While Aguilar's appeal was pending", since "pendency" is not a common word (and pendency links to the unrelated Suspension bridge article). I hope this is accurate. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" hatnotes should not contain terms that are linked in text, so District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago shouldn't be "see also" hatnotes for the "legal background" section.

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with firearm terminology. Is "Illinois prohibited the carry of a firearm" correct? It sounds very odd to me.

No, that is correct. Firearm can be substituted for pistol, handgun, or rifle. If it makes sense with one of those three words, firearm would normally be OK. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence of "Legal background" is more fully covered below in the "McDonald v. City of Chicago" section. It muddies the waters to include it here; I would simply end the section with "it was not clear yet that this applied to the individual states".

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote says "This would be a federal felony offense, but it was not charged." Would it be more accurate to say "This would have been a federal felony offense, but he was not charged"?

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text refers to shall-issue permits and may-issue permits without explaining those terms or linking to an article that does. Also, it refers to "shall issue" permits (with quotation marks and a space) in one part, but it refers to a shall-issue bill (with no quotation marks and a hyphen) in another.

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Normally, page ranges need to use an en-dash rather than a hypen. I know this article uses Bluebook style. Does Bluebook specify a hyphen for page ranges, as in "Aguilar, 944 N.E.2d at 825-26.", or is it mute on that point?

Rule 3.2 states "separated by an en dash (–) or hyphen (-)." I've just always used hyphens, because it was easier and allowed by the style. GregJackP Boomer! 21:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It might (or might not) be an issues in a FAC, but dash choices are not an issue for GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
All issues have been resolved.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References are fine.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I believe the information included is appropriate.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
This article works hard to be NPOV, on such a controversial subject.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No known free images would be particularly appropriate.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article now passes all our GA criteria, and I'm glad to pass it. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm putting this nomination on hold. If all issues are resolved in the next seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail.~~ – Quadell ^(talk) 15:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]