Wikipedia:Peer review/United States free speech exceptions/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

United States free speech exceptions[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the prose of the article prior to another go at GA.

Thanks and best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this PR. --Noleander (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Begin comments

  • "... that right a somewhat limited one." the word "somewhat" is too informal; could be deleted
  • "..Restrictions that are based off communicative impact .." - Poorly worded. Re-write
  • "but that still means .." phrase "still means" is too informal
  • " types of speech (e.g., political) are .." The abbreviation "e.g." should be avoided. Consider "for example" or "such as"
  • "Various intellectual property rights are speech restrictions, but are permissible" - Hard to read. Better is something like "Another class of permissible restrictions on speech are based on intellectual property rights".
  • "Threats of violence "directed ... to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death" are generally unprotected" - There is no need for a quote here. Quotes should be rarely used in WP encyclopedia articles - only when they original quote has some special or historical significance. That is not the case here. Just paraphrase the concept in plain english. Quotes in this article should only be used to quote a Supreme Court decision.
  • "... exceptions, as noted by Professor Eugene Volokh. "Threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes...". Remove mention of Eugene Volokh. There are many authors on this topic, and there is no need to single out one (that can be done in rare situations, but this sentence does not need a specific source named). Also, remove quotes from him.
  • "Main article: Virginia v. Black" - There are dozens of cases on this issue, I suppose. If Virginia v. Black is the most important one, it may be okay to refer to it, but use "See also" template, not "main" template.
  • ".... case involving "offensive speech"" - No need to enclose "offensive speech" in quote marks.
  • "..There is a fifth category of analysis highlighted by Professor Volokh. ..." - Remove all references to this one source. Continue using as a citation (footnote) but no need to name the source in the article.
  • Overall, the prose is not of the quality expected for GA quality.
  • Overall, the article is not very thorough: since this article was created independently from Freedom of speech in the United States, this needs to be especially comprehensive. Otherwise, why split it off?
  • I think the GA review for this article mentioned that there is a lot of overlap between this article and Freedom of speech in the United States. Rather than invest much work in this article, it is probably better to work on the "Exceptions" sections in that other article. After that is perfect, then consider splitting it off as a new article (see WP:CONTENT FORK and WP:SPLITTING).

End comments from Noleander --Noleander (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Noleander! Face-smile.svg Lord Roem (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I have finished the specific prose suggestions you listed above. I will look into expanding the article so it is more complete. Thanks again for your review, feel free to close the PR at your leisure. All the best, Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)