![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My point in restoring the Volokh source and therefore removing the notability and unsourced tags in addition to the prod was that in my opinion, it is a perfectly acceptable RS about legal blogging, and the statement and cite belongs in the article. With a good source in it, sourcing and expanding the article was not urgent. If there is no objection I will restore it. John Z ( talk) 04:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process? According to Google news, it mentions SCOTUSblog in 2003. This is the article, but SCOTUSblog is not mentioned in the freely available part. Pcap ping 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
1 errors were found on SCOTUSblog in the references. The URLs and corresponding error type are shown below:
[('HTTP Error 404', u' http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/100,000')]
You may wish to remove the link or update it, as needed. Thank you, AiuwBot 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across this article when I noticed the blog being mentioned at
WP:RSN. Coming here, I notice that the name of
Tom Goldstein is not mentioned in the text, only the references. Since he appears to be the prime mover of the blog, shouldn't that be rectified? He does have his own Wikipedia article. Also I found a May, 2009 article in the Washington Post that credits him as the founder of the blog: Howard Kurtz (31 May, 2009).
"Scotusblog: High Court, High Speed, High Profile". Washington Post. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I suggest that the Post article be added to the reference list. Some other items from the Post article that could be worth including:
Let me know if anyone disagrees with addition of this material. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My point in restoring the Volokh source and therefore removing the notability and unsourced tags in addition to the prod was that in my opinion, it is a perfectly acceptable RS about legal blogging, and the statement and cite belongs in the article. With a good source in it, sourcing and expanding the article was not urgent. If there is no objection I will restore it. John Z ( talk) 04:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process? According to Google news, it mentions SCOTUSblog in 2003. This is the article, but SCOTUSblog is not mentioned in the freely available part. Pcap ping 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
1 errors were found on SCOTUSblog in the references. The URLs and corresponding error type are shown below:
[('HTTP Error 404', u' http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/100,000')]
You may wish to remove the link or update it, as needed. Thank you, AiuwBot 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across this article when I noticed the blog being mentioned at
WP:RSN. Coming here, I notice that the name of
Tom Goldstein is not mentioned in the text, only the references. Since he appears to be the prime mover of the blog, shouldn't that be rectified? He does have his own Wikipedia article. Also I found a May, 2009 article in the Washington Post that credits him as the founder of the blog: Howard Kurtz (31 May, 2009).
"Scotusblog: High Court, High Speed, High Profile". Washington Post. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I suggest that the Post article be added to the reference list. Some other items from the Post article that could be worth including:
Let me know if anyone disagrees with addition of this material. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)