| Revision as of 04:25, 18 October 2024 editGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,867 editsm →Berghuis v. Thompkins← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:37, 18 October 2024 edit undoWhite whirlwind (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers30,035 edits →Berghuis v. ThompkinsNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| :I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. ] (]) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | :I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. ] (]) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :Please make sure that you follow ] when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | :Please make sure that you follow ] when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted. <small><b><span style="border:1px solid;background:#030303"> ]</span></b></small> 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:37, 18 October 2024
Berghuis v. Thompkins
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted. White Whirlwind 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)