Talk:Compulsory Process Clause/GA1

__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-GA_Review-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","replies":["c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review","c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review-1"],"text":"GA Review","linkableTitle":"GA Review"}-->

GA Review

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-GA_Review-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","replies":["c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review","c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review-1"]}}-->

__DTLATESTCOMMENTTHREAD__{"id":"c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review","timestamp":"2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z"}__-->__DTCOMMENTCOUNT__2__-->__DTAUTHORCOUNT__1__-->

__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-GA_Review-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","replies":["c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review","c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review-1"],"text":"GA Review","linkableTitle":"GA Review"}-->

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","author":"Cryptic C62","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review","replies":[]}}-->

There are a lot of problems with this article. The biggest issue is that this article is not a comprehensive account of the subject. The following cases are not mentioned in the article:

Roviaro vs. United States (1957)
Webb v. Texas (1972)
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal (1982)
United States v. Webster (1984)
Rock v. Arkansas (1987)

As I am not an expert on American law, I will readily concede that not all of these may be particularly important. However, it is somewhat concerning that the number of potentially relevant cases which are not mentioned exceeds those that are mentioned.

The use of scholarly journals is commendable, but where are the book sources? The following books discuss the compulsory process clause, and some even have entire chapters dedicated to the subject. This is just a small sample, as I am sure there are countless others that could be useful.

Garcia, Alfredo (1992). The Sixth Amendment in Modern American Jurisprudence. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313278778.
Amar, Akhil Reed (1998). The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300074888.
Emanuel, Steven L. (2010). Emanuel Law Outlines: Evidence (7 ed.). Aspen Publishers. ISBN 978-0735590427.
Davis, Sue (2007). Corwin and Peltason's Understanding the Constitution (17 ed.). Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 978-0495007548.

Once the comprehensiveness issue has been addressed, there are other problems that need to be taken care of:

The Text and Other sources sections are too small to exist as top-level sections. These should be expanded or merged into other sections.
The Other sources section is entirely unsourced.
The introduction should summarize all of the important points that are brought up in the body of the article. Currently, this is not the case.
See WP:DASH for correct usage of hyphens and en dashes.
Why are some the names of some cases italicized and some not? These should be consistent.

These problems are not insurmountable, but they are significant enough that they should have been addressed before submitting the article to GAN, not during the review. I am closing this nomination. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the points I've mentioned. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z","author":"Cryptic C62","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cryptic_C62-2012-06-17T20:41:00.000Z-GA_Review-1","replies":[]}}-->