This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Safford Unified School District v. Redding article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Safford Unified School District v. Redding 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: October 20, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Safford Unified School District v. Redding appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 November 2020, and was viewed approximately 9,491 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi -- The slip opinion (or at least the *.pdf version available through the SCOTUS PR office last evening) throughout identifies Savana Redding as being a 13-year-old at the time of the search. J. Ginsberg in a public speech made a reference to her puberty stage, which cannot (or at least extremely rarely) occur in a 9-year-old. 9-year-old boys worry about getting "cooties" from seeing a halfway-naked classmate; some 13-year-old boys have those sexual hormones already percolating. Savana clearly was embarassed in a way that a 9-y-o girl would not be. The news reports repeatedly note that she was 13. How can this be corrected? John, Not a Lawyer ( talk) 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)John,Not a Lawyer
I'd like to add in who had accused redding of having the drugs. The facts show it was a confidential informant. I also think standard headers should be placed in - facts (occurrence and procedural), issue, holding, and reasoning. Bearian ( talk) 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I realize that I am hardly a disinterested party, but I think that the rewrite that took place overnight is unfortunate. Whereas this article was yesterday a concise summary of the facts of the case and the court's holding, it is now a needlessly lengthy hodgepodge of quotes from the various opinions tied together with bullet point bailing wire. Rather than simply revert, I will raise the issue here. While I have no objection to the case summary I originally wrote being expanded and given more detail, I think we should return to its style, which is surely more readable (to laypersons and lawyers alike) than the stilted and awkward case summary now presented to readers. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I made some edits to include more identifying information about the actors. I was confused, when first reading this article, who "wilson" was--there had been no previous mention of this person, and it wasn't made clear. It took a bit of digging to find out his whole name and title, but I put that in the text, along with full names and titles of the other 2 staff members. If there is some reason to keep their full names off the wiki page (when they are otherwise available online), there should AT LEAST be identifying adjectives, e.g., that Wilson was an asst. principal. Also, that Wilson is male and the other 2 staff involved in the strip search were female. While adding that info, I also did some minor edits (grammar, punctuation) to improve readability.
My question though--what is the "22" at the end of [what is now] the 5th paragraph of that section? It is not formatted as a source/reference, but, in the Reference section, there is a strange line at the bottom for "22." I left it alone, as I don't know what it could be. But what also made me wonder about it's inclusion, is that para.5 contains information that does not seem to be included in any other source I found online--the supposed allegations of faculty members regarding Savana's and Marissa's behavior, their "relationship," and then the assertion by the author of para.5 that SOME entity determined the info of para.5 to be "plausible grounds." The whole paragraph really strikes me as odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbey84 ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Mz7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 20 October 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:
You weren't kidding about the copyvio stuff. But yes, I did confirm that it's quotes and public domain stuff. Both hooks are really good. ALT1 is tiny bit hookier, but if you want to use a picture, the ALT0 is good.
Bait30
Talk 2 me pls?
06:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Safford Unified School District v. Redding article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Safford Unified School District v. Redding 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: October 20, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Safford Unified School District v. Redding appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 November 2020, and was viewed approximately 9,491 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi -- The slip opinion (or at least the *.pdf version available through the SCOTUS PR office last evening) throughout identifies Savana Redding as being a 13-year-old at the time of the search. J. Ginsberg in a public speech made a reference to her puberty stage, which cannot (or at least extremely rarely) occur in a 9-year-old. 9-year-old boys worry about getting "cooties" from seeing a halfway-naked classmate; some 13-year-old boys have those sexual hormones already percolating. Savana clearly was embarassed in a way that a 9-y-o girl would not be. The news reports repeatedly note that she was 13. How can this be corrected? John, Not a Lawyer ( talk) 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)John,Not a Lawyer
I'd like to add in who had accused redding of having the drugs. The facts show it was a confidential informant. I also think standard headers should be placed in - facts (occurrence and procedural), issue, holding, and reasoning. Bearian ( talk) 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I realize that I am hardly a disinterested party, but I think that the rewrite that took place overnight is unfortunate. Whereas this article was yesterday a concise summary of the facts of the case and the court's holding, it is now a needlessly lengthy hodgepodge of quotes from the various opinions tied together with bullet point bailing wire. Rather than simply revert, I will raise the issue here. While I have no objection to the case summary I originally wrote being expanded and given more detail, I think we should return to its style, which is surely more readable (to laypersons and lawyers alike) than the stilted and awkward case summary now presented to readers. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I made some edits to include more identifying information about the actors. I was confused, when first reading this article, who "wilson" was--there had been no previous mention of this person, and it wasn't made clear. It took a bit of digging to find out his whole name and title, but I put that in the text, along with full names and titles of the other 2 staff members. If there is some reason to keep their full names off the wiki page (when they are otherwise available online), there should AT LEAST be identifying adjectives, e.g., that Wilson was an asst. principal. Also, that Wilson is male and the other 2 staff involved in the strip search were female. While adding that info, I also did some minor edits (grammar, punctuation) to improve readability.
My question though--what is the "22" at the end of [what is now] the 5th paragraph of that section? It is not formatted as a source/reference, but, in the Reference section, there is a strange line at the bottom for "22." I left it alone, as I don't know what it could be. But what also made me wonder about it's inclusion, is that para.5 contains information that does not seem to be included in any other source I found online--the supposed allegations of faculty members regarding Savana's and Marissa's behavior, their "relationship," and then the assertion by the author of para.5 that SOME entity determined the info of para.5 to be "plausible grounds." The whole paragraph really strikes me as odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbey84 ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Mz7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 20 October 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:
You weren't kidding about the copyvio stuff. But yes, I did confirm that it's quotes and public domain stuff. Both hooks are really good. ALT1 is tiny bit hookier, but if you want to use a picture, the ALT0 is good.
Bait30
Talk 2 me pls?
06:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)