Wikipedia:Peer review/Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna/archive1

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after creating it and getting it on DYK recently, I realized how comprehensively that initial turn had covered this recent but relatively little-known (outside the consumer-law and arbitration communities) U.S. Supreme Court case concerning arbitration, one of the few times Clarence Thomas not only is not on the same side as Antonin Scalia but is the lone dissenter. Since all the briefs submitted were online, as well as some law-review articles discussing it from both pro and con perspectives, I thought this could be a GA or FA at some point. So here's the beginning of that road.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Hi Daniel, interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

My responses follow. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Article needs more references, for example the first paragraph of "Background of the case" has no refs, neither does "Subsequent jurisprudence". My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

Agreed, I certainly have the same philopsophy in reviewing articles. I do need refs for the stuff about payday lending and arbitration at the beginning; and I'll put them in before taking this to GAC. As for the last graf, see below about legal citation style.

 Done Mostly ... I need to cite that bit about criticisms of mandatory predispute binding arbitration. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Took care of that now, too. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was not entirely sure what "Supra" meant as a ref - I think it means see above (Latin and all that) but such print terms are not generally used here since another editor could add another ref between these and then this would seem to refer to the incorrect ref.

Supra means roughly the same thing as Ibid.. It's the preferred form in legal writing, whether in documents related to a court proceeding or in journal articles, and as such we've been using it for articles about court decisions, or that reference court decisions. Lawyers reading it would expect to see it (I can wikilink it in the footnote).

Leaving aside my common response to the complaint about using Ibid., I will explain that this is meant to indicate here that the same decision is being referred to, not necessarily the same page or even opinion. Again, this is common legal-writing practice.

 Done After discussions with another user, I have decided to follow the guideline and just use the author name. Daniel Case (talk)

• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

I assume you're referring to the findlaw links ... at WP:SCOTUS we've been doing it that way for a while. I suppose I could convert them to footnoted links with the case title and publisher.

• Any chance for a free picture - the Supreme Court building or Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia have to be available, or perhaps one of the payday loan places?

Hmm. I had thought about this. I'm leery of using the picture at payday loan for two reasons:

• First, the case isn't about payday lending per se; it's about arbitration and contract law, which are abstract concepts difficult to picture. (Perhaps I could find an arbitration clause in one of those many contracts of adhesion we all have signed, like a credit-card agreement, and photograph that, but to me there might be copyright issues, and really, why take a photograph of something that's essentially textual?

• Second, the photo at payday loan is really ill-suited for this purpose. It's long, and so would squish the text into the infobox at the point where it should be used in violation of WP:LAYOUT as well as generally accepted principles of online text-display aesthetics. And from an encyclopedic perspective the picture leaves something to be desired ... it's cluttered, with so much else to see in the window. It's OK for that article, I guess, since it provides context, but not for this one.

  I know you'll say I could take another picture, but New York doesn't seem to a particuarly friendly place for payday lenders (I've driven many times through poorer neighborhoods in the cities of the Hudson Valley and never seen any check-cashing place or similar business that offers payday loans, and those areas are usually where you would find them).

But a photo of Scalia — yeah, that'll work.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOSQUOTE there should be a ref right after a direct quote, so for example "While seemingly a mere reiteration of Prima Paint's holding," the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (IICPR) wrote, "the Buckeye decision both clarifies and expands an arbitrator's jurisdiction by adding potentially void contracts to an arbitrator’s domain and by unequivocally extending the severability and validity principles into state court." needs a ref.

Will do.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Could this be expanded: He suggests ways both legislative and judicial bodies could remedy this situation.?

Yes, certainly. I was on the brink of sleep at the time and was literally having a hard time keeping my eyes open. So I just ended it there. I will add the specifics.

• "Aftermath" is a very short section - could it be made part of the Legacy section (perhaps "Aftermath and legacy")? There are several other short paragraphs (one or two sentences) that could be expanded or combined

Well, I want to distinguish between what happened to the actual case (the eventual settlement) and its impact on later cases like Preston v. Ferrer and how it was received and critiqued by the legal community.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Already did. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I do not know about legal sourcing or legal article style standards, so ignore my comments there. I have seen hidden comments at the start of articles if special citation styles are used. I am fine with the short section - just an idea. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)