Talk:Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A bit lopsided[edit]

Yes, there's a bit of shoehorning going on, but it does serve to demonstrate the lopsided nature of this article. The background information is way too much. A lot of this info is covered in those articles' pages. Only content relevant to this case should be in this article. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the amount of background information was excessive, but restored the original section structure, which I thought was more structured and made more sense (Background should not include things like the parties and facts of the case, etc.) Thanks for helping edit this! Dcoetzee 18:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, where do you put facts of the case if not in the background section? This article is about the U.S. Supreme Court case, so you generally have three sections: background to the case ("Background"), the Court's holding ("Opinion of the Court"), and then subsequent developments ("Subsequent developments").
The parties section is unusual for a U.S. Supreme Court article and seems completely necessary to me. It's two paragraphs of irrelevant information about the parties (including Duke's mission statement); this is all information that readers can find in the articles of those subjects or on those subjects' Web sites. The entire "Parties" section can be cut, as far as I'm concerned. Similarly, the prior cases section is all background to the main topic of this article: the U.S. Supreme Court case. So it makes sense to put that info in the background section and beef up the other sections to make the article better balanced. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I haven't looked closely at other SCOTUS articles - my intuition is that the prior decisions on the same case in lower courts are especially relevant and it doesn't make a lot of sense to split those into other articles. I agree that the description of the parties can be cut down (I think a one sentence summary of each with a link would be sufficient in this context). The background section feels a bit verbose, but it does focus on the definition of "modification" in each statute which is the bit that is relevant to this case - other parts of the background description might be reduced. Dcoetzee 05:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Right. It's mostly a matter of paring down the background info. Some of it is plainly irrelevant and can be easily cut.
One of the benefits I see to following the format adopted by WP:SCOTUS is that it forces the writer to focus on why this case is being discussed: because it's a U.S. Supreme Court case. That gives it pretty much inherent notability here, so it's important to try to keep the article well-balanced between background info, the opinion itself, and its impact or other subsequent developments.
Looking at the current version of this article, what should be the real meat and potatoes of the article is covered in two paragraphs. The opinion itself is a decent length, so there should be more to say. (We're not talking about a paragraph per curiam opinion here or anything!) There's some real substance to the Court's opinion (and Thomas's concurrence) and that should be the heart of this article.
There's currently a weird imbalance, but the two easiest ways to address that are to cut the unimportant bits from the background section and flesh out the two other sections. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to edit our article! Where would you suggest to add more info to in order to make the article more well-rounded and less lopsided? Ymauricia (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied above. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

I think it is a well organized and extremely thorough article, you both obviously put a lot of work into this, great job!! ElleJean 18:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You both did an impeccable job laying out the elements of this case in a thoughtful way. The "significance" portion explained why the case was relevant and what sort of precedent was set by it, which helped me to organize my thoughts while reading through the facts. rrosa3005 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits[edit]

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

  • 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
  • 1 - A few minutes of work needed
  • 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
  • 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
  • 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)