Talk:Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson

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

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Multiple issues: Verifiability and citations

@JJPMaster: Thank you for looking at this article. I see you added the "multiple issues" template to the page with the following notes: needs additional citations for verification, has an unclear citation style. Can you elaborate on what is deficient about the sources and citation style? Wdougs (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wdougs, the sources themselves were good, there just weren't enough of them (either that or I intended to add the "primary sources" template instead). As for the citation style, I accidentally added that one because I didn't understand what "Jones 2007" meant, but I later realized that it was a reference to a reference. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJPMaster: I think the "primary sources" template may be more appropriate for this article. I don't see an issue with verifiability, because I supported everything with citations to reliable sources.I think the problem may be that most of the sources are contemporaneous and summarize the topic, and might be considered primary. The article would benefit from more secondary sources that analyze the case. Your thoughts? Wdougs (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wdougs, on second thought, I am pretty sure that I meant to tag the page for primary sources instead of lack of sources. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJPMaster: Looks good, thanks for your time. Wdougs (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]