A fact from Reed v. Town of Gilbert appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 December 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
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
This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. 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.
@Notecardforfree: My sincerest apologies. I haven't had the patience to review an article in awhile; after doing so many within a short amount of time, I grew a bit tired. However, this is not your fault, it is merely my own. I will review it ASAP, once again, I am very sorry. :( Carbrera (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: No need to apologize; I've been preoccupied for much of the last two weeks, so the timing actually works well. Thanks again for volunteering to review this and let me know if you have any questions along the way. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely sorry for the long delay I have caused before actually reviewing the article. Fortunately, this article is quite exceptional, so I will continue with the review now. I only have a few comments to share; here they are:
You can remove the "Subsequent", "Dissent", "JoinDissent", and "Overturned previous case" sections since they are empty and will likely never be non-empty
There is absolutely no mention of Clyde Reed in the lead, despite the title of the article being "Reed v. Town of Gilbert"
I don't think that factual background about Reed's identity is necessary when summarizing the narrative of events in the case in the lead. Unless you think it seriously detracts from the summary of the article, I think we should simply say in the lead that the church filed suit, since it was the church that placed the signs. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The picture of Gilbert, Arizona used in this article is quite large and could be reduced in terms of the size of the image so it doesn't disrupt the article flow as much
At the end of this section, perhaps you could add that "failing to include the date of the event on a sign" went against the town's policies/laws? What do you think about that
I think the fact that the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited them communicates to the reader that the practice violated the town's sign regulations (the compliance manager certianly would not have issued citations if the signs had been set up in a manner that complied with the sign code). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Notes" section could be used with "[A]" or "[N1]" symbols instead of "[fn 1]"; I guess I just do not find this lettering style necessary when it can be simpler and still get the same point across
You use "Justice Thomas" quite often; could you think of another way to clarify it's him who is speaking; you could even use "him" or "he" where applicable?
You also use "The town" back-to-back, you could also just state "Gilbert" for example
Unless you think this seriously detracts from the quality of the prose, I'd prefer to keep this as-is so that the article maintains consistent naming conventions for the litigants. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you say "wrote his separate concurring opinion" rather than the current use of "a"?
In legal scholarship, it is common to state that "Justice Appleseed wrote a concurring opinion" or "Justice Washington wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment." Unless you think this seriously detracts from the quality of the prose, I'd prefer to keep this as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Justice Breyer's opinion concurring in the judgement
You could place the audio sample within the article where it would be best placed, rather than at the end of the article where it is less likely to be seen by the casual reader
Per WP:EL, external links should not normally be placed in the body of an article". Because the link directs readers outside of Wikipedia, I think we should keep this in the external links section. However, I agree that it would nice for more readers to find the link (though I should also note that there is a link to the Oyez project recording of the oral arguments in the infobox). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I previously stated in my review for "Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000" that that particular article was the best one I have ever read completely on Wikipedia. However, I have now changed my mind, in favor for this one. This article is brilliantly written, and is fully complete. Thank you for your contributions to this article! I will put the article on hold for seven days to allow for any changes to be made to it. Happy editing; cheers! Carbrera (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: Many thanks for your kind words about the article and for your thorough review. I very much appreciate your eye for detail. I'll start working on improvements later today, and I'll be sure to let you know when I am finished. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: I think I have addressed all your points above. Please let me know if there is anything else that should be done with this article. Thanks again for your thorough review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaning the "his/her" issue in the "concurring" statements; I am unaware of sentence structures regarding this. I have reread the article accordingly and have passed the article. Thank you for your hard work! Best regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
