Talk:US Supreme Court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

Review of revision 1936538 [Passed]

Revision 1936538 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The bit about the decision not affecting whether same-sex couples can have children was argumentative, because it's not simply pointing out a factual error. The claim afaics was not that overturning DOMA denies children the opportunity to have a mother and a father, but that same-sex marriage does so. Well, it does (if one accepts the biasing verb "deny"). One could argue that federal recognition would make same-sex couples more likely to have children, therefore if you think that's damaging to children, it would follow that the DOMA decision was damaging to children. So, simply observing that DOMA doesn't affect whether couples are legally allowed to have children (I'd definitely have inserted "legally" if keeping the passage) presents a fragment of one side of a sprawling argument without attempting to alert the reader that there's more to it — see WN:PILLARS#neutral. 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 1936538 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The bit about the decision not affecting whether same-sex couples can have children was argumentative, because it's not simply pointing out a factual error. The claim afaics was not that overturning DOMA denies children the opportunity to have a mother and a father, but that same-sex marriage does so. Well, it does (if one accepts the biasing verb "deny"). One could argue that federal recognition would make same-sex couples more likely to have children, therefore if you think that's damaging to children, it would follow that the DOMA decision was damaging to children. So, simply observing that DOMA doesn't affect whether couples are legally allowed to have children (I'd definitely have inserted "legally" if keeping the passage) presents a fragment of one side of a sprawling argument without attempting to alert the reader that there's more to it — see WN:PILLARS#neutral. 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.