| Revision as of 21:54, 29 June 2006 editChaser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,934 edits temporarily listing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld while it is on the front page← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:58, 29 June 2006 edit undoChaser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,934 edits linked Hamdan, brief msgNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| <center><font size=+2>'''The current PCA is: ''Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'''''</font></center> | <center><font size=+2>'''The current PCA is: '']'''''</font></center> | ||
| '''Notice''': This case is listed on the "In the news" section on the front page. As of now, it has very little information on the opinions, so whatever work can be done to add that in the next few days would be very helpful. Discussion so far is on the article's talk page.--] ] 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- The following code can be added, as necessary, to the talk page for the current PCA | <!-- The following code can be added, as necessary, to the talk page for the current PCA | ||
Revision as of 21:58, 29 June 2006
The United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project Project Collaboration Article is an article chosen by members of the Project who wish to participate. The object of the collaboration is to improve the article to the level of a featured article on the Misplaced Pages Main Page.
Notice: This case is listed on the "In the news" section on the front page. As of now, it has very little information on the opinions, so whatever work can be done to add that in the next few days would be very helpful. Discussion so far is on the article's talk page.--Kchase02 T 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Next PCA
Nominations
Voting for the next PCA may begin at any time. The following articles have been nominated:
- Marbury v. Madison - established judicial review
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - government's ability to detain unlawful combatants
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services abortion regulation
- United States v. Carolene Products Co. Footnote four started modern levels of judicial scrutiny
- Prize Cases presidential power in wartime
Voting
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
- could use lots of background information and is very timely.--Kchase02 T 05:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded. The opinions section could definitely be expanded, and I suspect there is a wealth of critical response that can be integrated as well. RidG Talk 05:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians involved
Article sections
The sections as outlined by the Project are listed below. As sections are completed by Wikipedians, they should be crossed off to show that they are done.
- Introduction
- Prior history
- The case
- Effects
- Subsequent history
- Sources and further reading
- External links
- Categories
- Interlanguage links (if possible)
For an explanation of the type of information that should be included in each section, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases#Guidelines and article outline.
Votes for closure
This section is to be used once an article has reached the point of being completed and every section above is crossed off. All Wikipedians involved must register their vote to close a collaboration. When the every member involved agrees that the article is complete to both Project and featured article standards, the article will be submitted as a nomination for featured article. Until every member involved in the particular collaboration agrees that the article is complete, it will continue to be worked on.
- Work seems to have stopped. While there's more we could do, it might be more fun to move on to a new article. Thoughts?--Kchase02 T 01:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I contacted the editors here who have worked on the article and each were happy to move to a new one.--Kchase02 T 05:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)