Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Marshall Harlan II/1

John Marshall Harlan II

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Keep. This was effectively an individual reassessment and the issues raised were fixed. Geometry guy 11:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WP:WPBIO, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, WP:LAW, Lord Emsworth (inactive leading editor), Ruslik0 (2nd leading editor)

Upon review of the article history at Talk:John Marshall Harlan II this article was not properly nominated and passed. However, the article has previously survived a WP:GAR nomination and is outside of my area of expertise, so I did not delist it myself. The article is very poorly cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article actually contains lots of case citations, which, in my opinion, enough for the jurisprudence section. To solve the problem with some {{cn}} tags, it is necessary to convert some refs in Additional reading section into inline citations. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Can you convert the inline citations?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you think this article should use a template like 311 U.S. 32 (1940)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think now the article is properly cited. Ruslik (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw at least three cases where the {{ussc}} template was not used. I think each case should have this template if you don't want to go with inline footnote citations. Great work otherwise though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - ~~Keep~~ I think this now is pretty much up to standard. I am not sure whether law articles should have the {{ussc}} template inside <Ref></ref> tags. If anyone else has an opinion on this matter that would be useful. I am pleased to see everything tagged with the template. Now, everything is verifyable for the reader with WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wait a second Brown (maybe because it is the second reference of this case), Adderley v. Florida (1966), Carrington v. Rash (1965) still not converted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I cited all cases. Can not find anything uncited. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for helping. Now a reader can really verify things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate an opinion on whether some of the template case citations should be in ref tags.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be, but I don't think it is necessry in this article. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]