Talk:Lisa Blatt

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Lisa Blatt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SilverLocust (talk · contribs) 05:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look. Feel free to ignore me if and when I stray beyond what the criteria require.

  • She worked in the Office of the Solicitor General until 2009, when she joined Arnold & Porter. – the source ([1]) says there was a brief interregnum: "Blatt left the solicitor general's office in May 2009 and since then has served as an antitrust litigation consultant to the Federal Trade Commission. She argued on behalf of the commission in Federal Trade Commission v. Cephalon Inc., a still-pending case that aims to stop a brand-name drugmaker from paying generic competitors to stay out of the market."
    Added FTC. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be in good shape. More later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Initial responses until I'm available later. SilverLocust 💬 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, let's wrap this up:

  • In 1993, she moved... et seq.: the prose is a bit choppy here (lots of short sentences starting with "she")
  • distinctively blunt and informal style of speaking in court: it would be fundamentally wrong in several respects not to include an example here (whichever one you like)
  • The court of appeals held that public schools...: something like "the court of appeals had previously held" might make the chronology clearer.
  • Maybe include a page range for the Kavanaugh hearing transcript (ref. 25): a 1689-page PDF is a tad daunting.
  • I would just leave out her children's names; they don't really add anything, and "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong".

I think that's all, although I'll give it a final read-through once you're done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done all. SilverLocust 💬 19:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.