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 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
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
1b - this will not prevent the article from being passed, but would have an effect on A or FA status. The case outline at
WP:SCOTUS is highly recommended as the model for all SCOTUS case articles.
2b - the actual opinion is only cited to
primary sources. While SCOTUS articles should cite to the opinion (see
WP:MOSLAW),
secondary sources are also needed.
Misc. - Infobox docket number incomplete, links to SCOTUS search page as not found.
Thanks for reviewing! I've added secondary sources for the content of the majority opinion. As for the docket number, that's all that's listed at Oyez, FindLaw, etc. What else should I add here? --
Khazar2 (
talk) 15:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I removed the docket no. from the infobox - that's the only one I could find also, but it causes a link to the SCOTUS docket search, but won't pull it up. GregJackPBoomer! 16:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that seems like the best solution. --
Khazar2 (
talk) 16:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
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 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
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
2b.
reliable sources are
cited inline. All content that
could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
1b - this will not prevent the article from being passed, but would have an effect on A or FA status. The case outline at
WP:SCOTUS is highly recommended as the model for all SCOTUS case articles.
2b - the actual opinion is only cited to
primary sources. While SCOTUS articles should cite to the opinion (see
WP:MOSLAW),
secondary sources are also needed.
Misc. - Infobox docket number incomplete, links to SCOTUS search page as not found.
Thanks for reviewing! I've added secondary sources for the content of the majority opinion. As for the docket number, that's all that's listed at Oyez, FindLaw, etc. What else should I add here? --
Khazar2 (
talk) 15:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I removed the docket no. from the infobox - that's the only one I could find also, but it causes a link to the SCOTUS docket search, but won't pull it up. GregJackPBoomer! 16:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that seems like the best solution. --
Khazar2 (
talk) 16:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply