Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Supreme Court/archive1

New Jersey Supreme Court

This nomination was added by Judgesurreal777 at 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC), but no information was cited. RyanG e rbil10 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blast it! I tried to get it created through AfC, but someone beat me to it (See here) 68.39.174.238 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually not me, but I noticed it had been improperly put here, so I'll present it for whoever wanted it here. Other than a few red links, it looks pretty good to me :) Judgesurreal777 02:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok then! RyanG e rbil10 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Neutral. The article is well-written and very well referenced, but some of the sections need to be re-oredered and lengthened. RyanG e rbil10 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Not to be impertinent, but which ones seem too short or out of order? 68.39.174.238 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, alot's changed here as far as sections and the order they are listed in. You might want to check again and see if you agree with the changes. Thanx 68.39.174.238 10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, though it's an incredibly good article for a state Supreme Court. My issues are threefold. First, the History section needs some fill-in info from 1844-present. Second, the Impressions section definetly needs a rewording and, if not expanded, should be folded into another section (likely "Current Operation"). Finally, the Current composition should be better formatted and similarly folded into something else, again probably current operation. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For "history from 1844-present" are you suggesting anything specific, or just info on how that version of the court worked? Also, what part of "Impressions" do you see as being poorly written? Finally, I've merged the composition section as suggested. 68.39.174.238 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, I'd suggest getting a username. It takes two seconds and makes communication a lot easier. As for 1844-Present, I just don't like seeing 160 years of history completely missing from the History section of a currently operating body. Whatever fits into the realm of history belongs there, IMO. As for the "Impressions" section, I don't like a whole section being built out of a few sentences and one reference. If you can provide deeper reactions, perhaps even past stuff, that might warrant a full section. Until then, it just doesn't IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with "Impressions"; since the "impressions" are caused more then anything by the cases they've decided, it seemed best as a heading to that section. 68.39.174.238 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - if the above fixes are done, then I'll go for it Judgesurreal777 02:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppopse. I'm no expert on the NJSC, but I would guess that there have been some notable cases heard by the court prior to 1960. Pepsidrinka 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check under history, there's one/two there. I'm trawling whatlinkshere for others I've missed. 68.39.174.238 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As per comment above by Pepsidrinka. Lincher 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other cases (found perusing fast through the net) :

James P. Ross v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County (1903)

Where'd you find this? Google doesn't turn it up easily... 68.39.174.238 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See ISBN 0813533252 p. 176. Lincher 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coppage v. Kansas (1915-m)

Frank v. Mangum (1915-m)

Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell (1917-m)

Mountain Timber Co. v. Wahington (1917-m)

Pierce v. United States (1920-m)

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Saddle River, 96 N.J.L. 40. (1921)

Thomas v. Casey, 121 N.J.L. 185, 1 A.2d 866 (1938)

With the exception of the first case, which I can't find too easily (Do you have a link to something about it), all of those cases are cases of the Federal supreme court. 68.39.174.238 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for these cases. Lincher 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more :

State v. Post (1845) ... ISBN 081477993X. p.204.

Added 68.39.174.238 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the matter of Quinlan (1976). ISBN 081477993X. p. 224.

Already there as "in re Quinlan" 68.39.174.238 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson v. Sills (1970).

State v. Ordog, 45 NJ 347, 212 AId 370 (1965).

Robinson v. Cahill (1973). ISBN 0824793897. p.615.

(Correction:) Already covered under "Abbott cases" 68.39.174.238 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Felice v. Peace (1951). You'll have to see in the NJ Supreme court green book.

Vogel v. Roger (1954). You'll have to see in the NJ Supreme court green book.

Guess you can find more. Lincher 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It isn't bad, but I don't think the extensive list of cases belongs in the article, and there isn't much else. IMHO, the important cases section could be cut down to a couple of paragraphs, with the rest going off to a sub-article. Much of the "current operation" section would be more useful in the lead. There is only the most summary explanation of its jurisdiction. There is rather little on its history, only a brief description of each evolution. The list of justices might be more useful if it were put in a table, as with United States Supreme Court and High Court of Australia. There's virtually nothing on the appointment process apart from a footnote that Corzine will be appointing two replacements soon. There is nothing about where the court sits. It only has a sentence on where it fits politically (including nothing on the ideological makeup of the current court). I was left with quite a lot of questions after reading this article - United States Supreme Court and High Court of Australia would be good examples to look to, and to my knowledge neither of them are featured, so this has quite a way to go. Rebecca 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with this one over several comments, since I'm busy dealing with the cases above. As it is it immedately strikes me as being, well, slightly incorrect (Unless I misunderstood something): the articel on the Federal supreme court IS featured, and has been for about a year. Also, the constitutional process is shown and cited in the section above that ("Composition and appointment") 68.39.174.238 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (PS. Info on the "ideological makeup" is not easy to find. There was a comment a while ago about their being an unwritten rule regarding the political parties of the members, but I had to remove it as I could find no reference to support it.)[reply]

Correction! If you're willing to take Fox News as a legit source, I can give you the partizan makeup ;D! 68.39.174.238 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be a start. The composition and appointment section is very brief and doesn't tell you much at all (High Court of Australia is a good example of this done well), and the rest of my objections stand unaddressed in their entirety. Rebecca 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological makeup added. 68.39.174.238 04:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Too many sub-sections, and they're all too short. It has not got a good flow. — Wackymacs 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many have been merged into categories, I request you re-read it and let me know if that helps any. 68.39.174.238 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are still spelling errors and a variety of other mistakes that need to first be corrected. I've tried to cleanup the "Composition, appointment and life on the bench" section, but I still think the whole article needs another once over. JCO312 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ran through Open Office's spell checker and cleaned up the ones they suggested. As to "other mistakes" ... what? Grammar? Bad constructions? Can you give an example? Since I've done most of this it's hard to see errors in my own work... 68.39.174.238 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "This was then appealed to the Federal supreme court as Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, who reversed the ruling.[68]" So, federal is capitalized, which is wrong, and "supreme court" is not capitalized, also wrong. The United States Supreme Court is always supposed to be capitalized. Also, since it's an institution, the Court should not be refered to as a group of people, so it should say "which reversed the ruling" as opposed to "who reversed the ruling." I'll fix that sentence, but there are others that I'll try and work on later. Also, I'm told that there's a line in here about how Justices can be impeached after 2 years, and I don't think there is a 2 year "safe harbor," in other words they can be impeached before the first 2 years. JCO312 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Federal" buissiness is the result of not wanting to say "United States Supreme Court" every other paragraph, as many of those cases refer to it. The two year thing was a misread, I've removed it. 68.39.174.238 07:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

The list of important cases needs to be seperately resolved: At least two people each want more there (See list of cases above) and less (See comments immediately above this). Also, the page is hitting 30K. This (I suspect) has to be resolved to the satisfaction of a majority (at least) of people before this'll get featured. Any ideas (Other then "shorten it"/"lengthen it", which don't provide anything concrete)? 68.39.174.238 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said there should be more cases mentioned, but that doesn't mean I want a subsection for each case. If you could work it in the text that such and such cases were heard by the court and they are important for blah blah blah. Maybe one-two sentences max mention of a case. Pepsidrinka 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, like having seperate sections for say, civil rights, politics, etc? Sounds like an idea. Also, I'd like input from people who suggested individual cases whether or not they want a sampling of cases across all periods of the courts history, or just some contemporarily and currently important ones? 68.39.174.238 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented what I thought you were suggesting. 68.39.174.238 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should cases like Dale or TLO be included? It's true that they are significant cases, but they were overturned by the Supreme Court? How much significance do they have, given that fact? JCO312 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest they be mentioned as they were direct predecessors to cases of fairly significant import, however since this court wasn't the one that delivered the final descision on them and the cases have seperate pages, they should probably be not given in too much detail, i.e. enough to show what it was about and how the court ruled, and then a link to the page on the case itself. 68.39.174.238 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]