Jump to content

Talk:Taylor v. Illinois

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTaylor v. Illinois 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 17, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Taylor v. Illinois that defendants do not have an absolute right to obtain witnesses in their favor?

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taylor v. Illinois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Infobox

[edit]
  • No issues

Lead

[edit]
  • No issues

Background

[edit]
  • Taylor sought a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review his case. Verifiable?

Opinion of the Court

[edit]
  • No issues

Notes

[edit]
  • No issues

References

[edit]
  • No issues


After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix the mistake (I would fix it myself, but I am not sure if it can be verified). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that it went to the Supreme Court means he appealed the case... looking at other case articles, it seems there isn't a specific cite given for such a sentence. Is it okay as is then?
Thanks for the review! Lord Roem (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any update? I think I answered your issue above. Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response; I got busy in real life. Since the issues have been addressed, I feel comfortable passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]