Talk:United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 30, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
April 21, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri:

The GA reviewer left the following suggestions for improvement:

  • notable cases. This is the authors' opinion or original research. This is not to say the opinion is not valid.
    • working on this...
  • There is not a good balance between explaining the federal court system in general and what is different about Missouri.
  • There's also conflicting information. SE division mentioned but also the S division. fixed.

Let's try to fix these as well as we can.

Comments[edit]

More info is at this Judgepedia article. The image there may be copyrighted -- I can't find any copyright information anywhere on the site -- but with that information someone should be able to alter a map like File:Map of Missouri highlighting Atchison County.svg to show the outlines of the district. – Quadell (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the image comes from here from the official site. I have no idea if the image is copyrighted or not. (The website seems to have been designed circa 1996, and isn't particularly friendly.) – Quadell (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I replaced it. It's not great, but it'll do. If you can find or make a better one, please, replace. – Quadell (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions to move towards GA[edit]

  • Well referenced usually means a minimum of one cite per paragraph: 1st paragraph in mandate has none as does the judges section
  • WP:LEAD - most people agree the lead section should have few citations, as the info is supposed to be elsewhere in the article and should be cited there. The exception is that contentiousness type info should be cited in the lead. Also, rarely do you link parts of the bolded title, wikilink those terms later in the lead. Also mentions largest courthouse, I would also add the name. Also, maybe move the case citation from the lead and add it along with what reporters the cases are published in, to an appropriate section (see Oregon Supreme Court#Oregon Reporter for content ideas).
  • Headers should be concise, a couple in the history section should be trimmed.
  • References need to be full citations and need to be uniform. Websites tend to be missing retrieved date. For consistency you can use the templates, which you can add more easily using a gadget available under "my preferences" (if you didn't already know).
  • Lastly, in general this is rather legal focused, and kind of technical in that sense. For instance the first sentence:
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (in case citations, E.D. Mo.) is one of the 94 district-level courts which make up the first tier of the U.S. federal judicial system.
  • I would suggest something more like:
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is a trial level federal court based in St. Louis, Missouri, with jurisdiction over the 50 eastern counties of Missouri. The court is one of 94 district-level courts which make up the first tier of the U.S. federal judicial system. (not the next sentence says "federal matters" which ignores state claims with diversity jurisdiction, but the technical details in general here should be moved elsewhere and not be in the lead)
  • But in general "dumb it down" for the average reader. I know you feel it is more legal professionals who will be reading these court articles, which in that case they should already know most of the technical points of the federal court system. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have addressed many of these concerns. Thanks for the input! – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is really impressive work, though, considering the overhaul of this article in the past few weeks. bd2412 T 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking a lot better, but there are still some issues with the footnotes. #35 & 36 I think is the best way to approach case citations, so: 26, 28, 32, and 34 need to match (or if you prefer another format, just make sure they all match). With the "3 Stat. 653" and the like, add a publisher (GPO I think). #19 should have page numbers (plus the date is not in parentheses, but other cites do place them as such). #25 needs a period at the end to match the others. And one uses the Wikipedia standard (all the templates use it) of "Retrieved on" for the date, while the rest use "accessed". #27 needs to have the publication as [[Time (magazine)|''Time'']]. The key MOS part as they need to be consistent, whether you use ALWD as it looks like you have judging by the first name first or whether you use MLA or APA. I'll re-read the article later this week to look for any other issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have standardized the referencing for all cites. The only thing you mentioned that is not yet fixed is the format of notes 20, 21, etc. I'm not sure what to do for these. – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a proper citation format for the acts underlying statutes - I'll look for it, but not until this weekend (exams and all that). bd2412 T 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Judges section[edit]

We should include the names of the judges on senior status in the article; they do currently hear cases in the EDMo. THF (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've fixed that. – Quadell (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)