Talk:Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 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: February 27, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: GregJackP Boomer!
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
Done
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done Cross-checked with other FAs: United States v. Lara, Ex parte Crow Dog, Menominee Tribe v. United States
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
Cross-checked with other FAs: United States v. Lara, Ex parte Crow Dog, Menominee Tribe v. United States
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (PD)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. The prose quality in particular has been fantastic in all your articles. I’m inspired a lot by your conscientiousness. Thanks, GregJackP, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- GA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
- High-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
- WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
- GA-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- GA-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- Unknown-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Oklahoma articles
- Mid-importance Oklahoma articles