Talk:Elkins v. United States

Elkins v. United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 11, 2013. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elkins v. United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 14:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	While the article follows the MOS, it does not follow the WP:SCOTUS guidelines for articles.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~The opinion itself only cites to primary sources.~~
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

On hold. Specific comments:

1b - this will not prevent the article from being passed, but would have an effect on A or FA status. The case outline at WP:SCOTUS is highly recommended as the model for all SCOTUS case articles.

2b - the actual opinion is only cited to primary sources. While SCOTUS articles should cite to the opinion (see WP:MOSLAW), secondary sources are also needed.

Misc. - Infobox docket number incomplete, links to SCOTUS search page as not found.

Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I've added secondary sources for the content of the majority opinion. As for the docket number, that's all that's listed at Oyez, FindLaw, etc. What else should I add here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the docket no. from the infobox - that's the only one I could find also, but it causes a link to the SCOTUS docket search, but won't pull it up. GregJackP Boomer! 16:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems like the best solution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]