Misplaced Pages

:Good article reassessment/Berghuis v. Thompkins/1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:29, 18 October 2024 editZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,422 edits Creating GAR nomination page (GAR-helper Revision as of 04:05, 18 October 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,612 edits Berghuis v. ThompkinsNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:
: {{GAR/current}}<br/> : {{GAR/current}}<br/>
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. ] (]) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:05, 18 October 2024

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Article (edit | visual edit | history· Article talk (edit | history· WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost 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)
Category: