![]() | Vance v. Terrazas 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added sources to most of the article. The main portion that still needs sources is the "Issue" section (first three paragraphs). I've cited the court opinions themselves (primary sources) to substantiate quotes and simple statements of facts; I believe this is appropriate, but if anyone can add/replace using appropriate secondary sources, by all means go ahead. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've finished adding sources to the rest of the article. I'll continue to look for new secondary sources so as to make the article a bit less top-heavy with primary-source case cites. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 01:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lord Roem ( talk) 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Notes from Reading I think this is a very well-written article, and save for some minor changes that I believe can be resolved adaquately, this article should be on its way to GA Status. Following the criteria for the process, I have made my notes below of what I believed needs change:
After typing this all up, to me it does seem nit-picky, but I feel these changes can be made easily and quickly. Good job on this article, you put in layman's terms a complex case about a technical piece of immigration law, and for that I applaud you. I look forward to looking over it once more in the next day or so! Cheers -- Lord Roem ( talk) 08:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The revisions greatly improved the clarity of the article - well done.
Lord Roem ( talk) 22:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vance v. Terrazas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Vance v. Terrazas 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added sources to most of the article. The main portion that still needs sources is the "Issue" section (first three paragraphs). I've cited the court opinions themselves (primary sources) to substantiate quotes and simple statements of facts; I believe this is appropriate, but if anyone can add/replace using appropriate secondary sources, by all means go ahead. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've finished adding sources to the rest of the article. I'll continue to look for new secondary sources so as to make the article a bit less top-heavy with primary-source case cites. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 01:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lord Roem ( talk) 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Notes from Reading I think this is a very well-written article, and save for some minor changes that I believe can be resolved adaquately, this article should be on its way to GA Status. Following the criteria for the process, I have made my notes below of what I believed needs change:
After typing this all up, to me it does seem nit-picky, but I feel these changes can be made easily and quickly. Good job on this article, you put in layman's terms a complex case about a technical piece of immigration law, and for that I applaud you. I look forward to looking over it once more in the next day or so! Cheers -- Lord Roem ( talk) 08:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The revisions greatly improved the clarity of the article - well done.
Lord Roem ( talk) 22:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vance v. Terrazas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)