Talk:Nebraska Supreme Court: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:33, 29 March 2016

Law Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Archeryeverett, Azhusker100.8.

Stephanie Stacy

the list of current justices is out of date.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing? By the way, please note that there are bare-bones drafts for all missing former justices at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States state supreme court justices#Nebraska. bd2412 T 17:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very well written and you do a good job of laying out all of your information, which covers your topic well. The History section could be clarified a little bit, and you need a few more sources to back up your information. Overall, I think this is a well written article and its interesting that you found so much information that wasn't on wiki yet. Azhusker100.8 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review - for Class

The history section was rather well written. It is kind of disappointing that you only wrote the two paragraphs. As Azhusker100.8 mentioned, your section could use a few more links and sources to verify the information. Having one source for this section wouldn't be bad, except for the fact that you only wrote that small section, and therefore more research should be done to increase its size and quality. The section itself was written with proper Wikipedia formatting and language and that is very commendable. Archeryeverett (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 This is very well written and you do a good job of laying out all of your information, which covers your topic well. The History section could be clarified a little bit, and you need a few more sources to back up your information. Overall, I think this is a well written article and its interesting that you found so much information that wasn't on wiki yet. [[User:Azhusker100.8|Azhusker100.8]] ([[User talk:Azhusker100.8|talk]]) 02:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
+== Article Review - for Class ==
+The history section was rather well written.  It is kind of disappointing that you only wrote the two paragraphs.  As Azhusker100.8 mentioned, your section could use a few more links and sources to verify the information.  Having one source for this section wouldn't be bad, except for the fact that you only wrote that small section, and therefore more research should be done to increase its size and quality.  The section itself was written with proper Wikipedia formatting and language and that is very commendable.  [[User:Archeryeverett|Archeryeverett]] ([[User talk:Archeryeverett|talk]]) 02:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)