Talk:California Supreme Court upholds law hastening death penalty

Review of revision 4341661 [Passed]

Revision 4341661 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Whether or not a California ballot proposition is a "law" seems a seriously obscure point of terminology, and I wouldn't even necessarily trust any given source to get it right. In the first paragraph, at least, I found it simply easier to read using other terminology, and abundance of caution led me to avoid the term elsewhere too. It looks as if an intended source was left off the list, which seriously depleted the second-to-last paragraph. I stumbled a bit over the court document on Briggs v Brown, as I didn't see anything in the other sources that directly said that was the case involved; on close examination there was contextual support, though, including a direct quote from the relevant case that did, in fact, occur verbatim in that court document. For Ron Briggs being a former supervisor of El Dorado County, though no doubt better sourcing would have been ideal, the embedded note did lead me to [1]. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4341661 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Whether or not a California ballot proposition is a "law" seems a seriously obscure point of terminology, and I wouldn't even necessarily trust any given source to get it right. In the first paragraph, at least, I found it simply easier to read using other terminology, and abundance of caution led me to avoid the term elsewhere too. It looks as if an intended source was left off the list, which seriously depleted the second-to-last paragraph. I stumbled a bit over the court document on Briggs v Brown, as I didn't see anything in the other sources that directly said that was the case involved; on close examination there was contextual support, though, including a direct quote from the relevant case that did, in fact, occur verbatim in that court document. For Ron Briggs being a former supervisor of El Dorado County, though no doubt better sourcing would have been ideal, the embedded note did lead me to [2]. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Missing source

(edit conflict) I dug around a bit through California's penal code (with a bit of guidance via Wikipedia) and found the relevant laws on the books. I'd forgotten to include this somewhere.

• For this edit the relevant source is CA Penal Code 3604(a-b)
• For these ones the relevant sources are PEN 190.2, PEN 37, PEN 219, and PEN 128.

—mikemoral (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think perhaps something like below could work to include on the article itself:

• "Penal Code of California" — State of California, Retrieved August 27, 2017

—mikemoral (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks plausible. Added. --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)