Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rp0211 ( talk · contribs) 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):
   b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c ( OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox

• No issues

Lead

• No issues

Background

• Taylor sought a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review his case. → Verifiable?

Opinion of the Court

• No issues

Notes

• No issues

References

• No issues

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix the mistake (I would fix it myself, but I am not sure if it can be verified). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, the fact that it went to the Supreme Court means he appealed the case... looking at other case articles, it seems there isn't a specific cite given for such a sentence. Is it okay as is then?

Thanks for the review! Lord Roem ( talk) 22:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Any update? I think I answered your issue above. Lord Roem ( talk) 00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the late response; I got busy in real life. Since the issues have been addressed, I feel comfortable passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply