I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through the GA process and I believe it is up to FA standards! -- Sailing to Byzantium(msg), 19:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Alt text present, no problems in that area.
No dabs, no problems in that area.
Too much use of primary references. There are 195 law review articles that at least mention this case, some would clearly cover some of the material that is supported by citations to primary references. While in SCOTUS articles, primary references should be used, they should be used in conjunction with secondary sources. While the law review articles would require access to Lexis, Westlaw, Hein, EBSCO, or JSTOR, there are also plenty of secondary sources available from GoogleBooks. GoogleScholar also has some secondary sources available.
Several sections are way too short, consisting of a single sentence. These need to be either expanded or combined with other sections.
In general, the article needs to go into more depth. Several sections are good, but overall the article does not have the depth required for a featured article.
Case names are not italicized in the article (see WP:MOSLAW).
Legal materials are not cited appropriately per MOSLAW. SCOTUS generally uses a Bluebook citation style, and MOSLAW states "Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions."
Have these issues been addressed? – Quadell(talk) 21:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Not that I can tell. It looks like the only activity has been CitationBot has been run on the article. GregJackPBoomer! 00:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Delegate comment -- There's been plenty of time to action this first round of comments and the fact that hasn't occurred doesn't auger well for any additional reviews, so I'll be archiving the nom shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)