Talk:Illinois v. McArthur

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illinois v. McArthur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Although there are no grammar errors, I found four un-sourced statements from the article. Press Ctrl and F simultaneously to find the following quotations:

• "The police knocked and asked Charles if they could search, which he refused. He then came out of the trailer; an officer prevented him from going back inside while the other policeman rushed to get a warrant. The Illinois Appellate Court held that this action violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case in 2000."
• "He noted in conclusion that the hard-to-contest fact of probable cause made it difficult to accept McArthur's claims."
• "to condition his support on the belief that the search was appropriate only because of the immediate danger that the evidence could have been destroyed. Only in this unique instance could the warrant requirement be waived."
• "He wanted to give broader protection to the idea of the home as a place for protection, even if the home in this case was a trailer."

These are the other issues I found:

• "Justice Stevens wrote a brief dissenting opinion arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the Illinois legislature has largely reduced penalties for marijuana possession (making it ridiculous for the officers to rush to get a warrant)." - Although this is not a grammar error, I would suggest re-wording this sentence to avoid words in parenthesis. Try this: “Justice Stevens wrote a brief dissenting opinion arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the Illinois legislature has largely reduced penalties for marijuana possession, which made it ridiculous for the officers to rush to get a warrant."
• All but one reference (#3), is not in a citation template, such as cite web.
• Some of the references lead to the same location, such as #1 and #2, as well as #5 and #6. Combine those references by using ref name="section329" and ref name="section328" or something similar.
• Not quite what I wanted, but overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the article. Therefore, I am going to pass the article, but I recommend if this article does any further, such as to the FAC, that you use citation templates. Anyway, congratulations, --12george1 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In need of cleanup?

This article doesn't quite meet the Good Article criteria in my opinion. It relies heavily on primary sources, and said primary source (the case text itself) is one of only two sources listed; the other being a textbook that mentions the case exactly once that I could find. The article is also incredibly short, features no analysis or subsequent developments, is kind of confusing on the case facts and what the ruling even is, and has been tagged with a maintenance tag for almost two years (which was admittedly added by me, but still). I have too many other projects to focus on at the moment, but unless another editor is willing to help me address these issues, I intend to nominate it at WP:GAR in a month or two. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)