Talk:Taylor v. Illinois/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Infobox
[edit]- No issues
Lead
[edit]- No issues
Background
[edit]- Taylor sought a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review his case. → Verifiable?
Opinion of the Court
[edit]- No issues
Notes
[edit]- No issues
References
[edit]- No issues
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix the mistake (I would fix it myself, but I am not sure if it can be verified). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that it went to the Supreme Court means he appealed the case... looking at other case articles, it seems there isn't a specific cite given for such a sentence. Is it okay as is then?
- Thanks for the review! Lord Roem (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Any update? I think I answered your issue above. Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response; I got busy in real life. Since the issues have been addressed, I feel comfortable passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Any update? I think I answered your issue above. Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)