Talk:Illinois v. McArthur/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are no grammar errors, I found four un-sourced statements from the article. Press Ctrl and F simultaneously to find the following quotations:

"The police knocked and asked Charles if they could search, which he refused. He then came out of the trailer; an officer prevented him from going back inside while the other policeman rushed to get a warrant. The Illinois Appellate Court held that this action violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case in 2000."
"He noted in conclusion that the hard-to-contest fact of probable cause made it difficult to accept McArthur's claims."
"to condition his support on the belief that the search was appropriate only because of the immediate danger that the evidence could have been destroyed. Only in this unique instance could the warrant requirement be waived."
"He wanted to give broader protection to the idea of the home as a place for protection, even if the home in this case was a trailer."

These are the other issues I found:

"Justice Stevens wrote a brief dissenting opinion arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the Illinois legislature has largely reduced penalties for marijuana possession (making it ridiculous for the officers to rush to get a warrant)." - Although this is not a grammar error, I would suggest re-wording this sentence to avoid words in parenthesis. Try this: “Justice Stevens wrote a brief dissenting opinion arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the Illinois legislature has largely reduced penalties for marijuana possession, which made it ridiculous for the officers to rush to get a warrant."
All but one reference (#3), is not in a citation template, such as cite web.
Some of the references lead to the same location, such as #1 and #2, as well as #5 and #6. Combine those references by using ref name="section329" and ref name="section328" or something similar.
Not quite what I wanted, but overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the article. Therefore, I am going to pass the article, but I recommend if this article does any further, such as to the FAC, that you use citation templates. Anyway, congratulations, --12george1 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]