From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. |
Portal
|
Norbert Basil MacLean III is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
| B |
This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
|
|
|
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. |
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
|
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. |
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Work in Progress
Agree with the GA review of April 29, 2008. Over the next few days I'm going work on the areas suggested by GaryColemanFan. The article should be neutral and not political. I have found additional references and will be adding those references. I will also work on "what other have said" and put it into prose. I have been in law for nearly two decades (Washington, DC area) and since recently becoming aware of the situation I have discovered that most countries that have a democracy form of government permit their uniformed citizens to access their high court. (i.e.: Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, the United Kingdom) I find the article very informative on the subject and rich in references (i.e.: American Bar Association report, Congressional Research Service paper, Legistaltive Research Inc. statistics, Kevin Barry law review article) It would seem that if MacLean didn't push the issue it wouldn't have gone anywhere. Mattwashdc May 1, 2008
 |
Norbert Basil MacLean III was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. |
|
|
[edit] GA review
Unfortunately, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. I have concerns about several aspects of the article that I feel still need to be addressed. I believe that the article does not meet the following criteria:
- Well-written: The lead needs to be expanded to summarize all of the key points of the article. Copyediting is needed, as there are several noticeable writing errors. The lists also need to be converted to prose.
- Verifiable: Every claim that could be challenged requires a citation. Every paragraph needs at least one reference, but there is often the need for more than one. The references section also needs to be consistently formatted.
- Neutral: This is another big problem in the article. Because of the nature of topics like this, it is often difficult to keep bias out of the article. Some examples include: "that officer still had him court-martialled", "Ninety percent of all American court-martialled service members are completely sealed off from Supreme Court access due to the inequity", as well as the mention of the Republican-controlled Congress and the fact that one person involved was a Reagan appointee. Political affiliation is unnecessary to bring in to the article unless it is shown to directly affect the events.
I believe that this article needs some time for improvements to the prose, references, and neutrality. I am going to fail it because I feel that it needs quite a bit of work in these areas, but I encourage you to renominate it after addressing these concerns (and preferably placing it for peer review). I hope that this feedback it useful in future improvements to the article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
