![]() | McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 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. Review: August 26, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 September 2020, and was viewed approximately 5,096 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The third paragraph under Subsequent Law is based entirely on a single newspaper report from June 2011. That paragraph ends, "That bill is pending as of June 2011." Surely by now, five years later, the bill is, one way or the other, no longer pending. I have poked around a little but have not found its resolution. I will keep looking. Dgndenver ( talk) 07:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
this article could use a bit of work.
no mention of talley v california, the landmark case mcintyre built on. no discussion of citizens united, which may have created an exception for corporate speech.
i happen to know a lot about this case. gtbear at gmail aka arbitrary aardvark
came here hoping to find a photo of mcintyre. 50.90.215.156 ( talk) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)robbin stewart
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Babegriev ( talk · contribs) 08:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Additional Comments: This is a really good article and, holistically speaking, deserves GA status. Once corrected, this will be a beneficial addition to the GA list.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Mz7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
epicgenius (
talk)
15:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 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. Review: August 26, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 September 2020, and was viewed approximately 5,096 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The third paragraph under Subsequent Law is based entirely on a single newspaper report from June 2011. That paragraph ends, "That bill is pending as of June 2011." Surely by now, five years later, the bill is, one way or the other, no longer pending. I have poked around a little but have not found its resolution. I will keep looking. Dgndenver ( talk) 07:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
this article could use a bit of work.
no mention of talley v california, the landmark case mcintyre built on. no discussion of citizens united, which may have created an exception for corporate speech.
i happen to know a lot about this case. gtbear at gmail aka arbitrary aardvark
came here hoping to find a photo of mcintyre. 50.90.215.156 ( talk) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)robbin stewart
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Babegriev ( talk · contribs) 08:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Additional Comments: This is a really good article and, holistically speaking, deserves GA status. Once corrected, this will be a beneficial addition to the GA list.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Mz7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
epicgenius (
talk)
15:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)