![]() | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
![]() | Navarette v. California 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: March 26, 2016. ( 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 Navarette v. California appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Concertmusic ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I am taking on this article for a GA review. I hope to get this review done by end of this week, or possibly earlier if time permits. It may be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.
Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.
As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.
"The claim to 'eyewitness knowledge' of being run off the road supports not at all its veracity."However, I changed the citation to p.3-4 because J. Scalia also argued on p.4 that the caller may have embellished their story. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 20:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a thoroughly researched, very well-written, and engaging review of an important case. The comments above point out a few minor items, which appear to be easily correctable. I look forward to working with the author to get this article to GA very soon. Thank you! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree: Thank you for the prompt and detailed attention to my review comments! Everything above has been carefully reviewed and addressed, and it is my pleasure to promote this article to GA status! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
![]() | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
![]() | Navarette v. California 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: March 26, 2016. ( 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 Navarette v. California appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Concertmusic ( talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I am taking on this article for a GA review. I hope to get this review done by end of this week, or possibly earlier if time permits. It may be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.
Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.
As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.
"The claim to 'eyewitness knowledge' of being run off the road supports not at all its veracity."However, I changed the citation to p.3-4 because J. Scalia also argued on p.4 that the caller may have embellished their story. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 20:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a thoroughly researched, very well-written, and engaging review of an important case. The comments above point out a few minor items, which appear to be easily correctable. I look forward to working with the author to get this article to GA very soon. Thank you! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 23:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Notecardforfree: Thank you for the prompt and detailed attention to my review comments! Everything above has been carefully reviewed and addressed, and it is my pleasure to promote this article to GA status! -- Concertmusic ( talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria