Talk:Taylor v. Illinois/GA1

GA Review

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

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)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Infobox

No issues

Lead

No issues

Background

Taylor sought a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review his case. → Verifiable?

Opinion of the Court

No issues

Notes

No issues

References

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]