| Revision as of 04:24, 18 October 2024 editGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,867 edits Cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:25, 18 October 2024 edit undoGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,867 editsm →Berghuis v. ThompkinsNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| 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) | :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) | ||
Revision as of 04:25, 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)