Talk:J. D. B. v. North Carolina

Untitled

Scalia did not write the dissent, Alito did. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/j-d-b-v-north-carolina/

Arg, that was a silly mistake. Fixed, thanks! Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:J.D.B. v. North Carolina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to review this article. I noticed that the nominator has not been active on Wikipedia since August. For this reason, I plan to keep this review open for three weeks to allow any interested editor enough time to make the necessary revisions.

It is important to remember that not all readers might understand the legal requirements of a Miranda custody analysis. A "Background" section that explains this would be useful.

In the "Subsequent developments" section, the following statements should be expanded to fully explain the impact of the Court's ruling: "Steven Drizin, professor at Northwestern University School of Law, characterized the ruling as 'huge'. The Juvenile Law Center called the ruling a 'landmark decision'."

Thanks to all involved editors for their contributions. I will continue the review and post additional comments once the suggestions posted above are addressed. Edge3 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to take over as nominator. I'll need to figure out how to introduce the concept of Miranda rights in a succinct way; I'm still chewing on that one. Regarding the "Subsequent developments" section, I expanded the "huge" designation, but I did not find the term "landmark decision" used at the source given. So I modified the statement, adding several statements both positive and negative, from the sources. I renamed it to "Reception and subsequent developments", since I think the better describes the section's contents. How does it look? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a new section in the background super-section, regarding Miranda warnings. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional content. I will continue the review and post additional comments shortly. Edge3 (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The citations for the North Carolina Supreme Court decision could be consolidated. The citation in the "Notes" section points to the Google Scholar version, and the citation in the "References" section points to the North Carolina Courts website. I would select only one source (perhaps the official court website), and have the "References" citation point to the "Notes" citation. Edge3 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I believe I have now resolved this issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Great! I have a few more comments:

• In "Miranda as an objective test", the blockquote is attributed to "Justice Ginsburg". I think "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" (without "Justice") is the proper attribution, per WP:HONORIFIC. Perhaps "Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice" might also be a valid alternative. Please feel free to consult other articles for good examples.
  • This is an interesting situation. In FAs such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Washington v. Texas, and United States v. The Progressive, justices are referred to as "Associate Justice Horace Gray" or "Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes". I don't think "Justice" should be part of the link to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg article, but I think it should precede the name. See if my fix is acceptable to you. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Rather, the Court held that age is an objective fact" — Is age an objective fact or factor? I would verify by checking the court's opinion.
  • Good point, definitely a factor. Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• The "Reception and subsequent developments" contains commentary on the amicus briefs. However, amicus briefs are filed before the court. Thus, they are not reactions to the court's decision, nor are they subsequent developments. Please consider moving this content elsewhere, and expand the "Reception and subsequent developments" section with more content if possible.
  • You're quite right. I've moved the amicus brief information, and am working on adding reaction information. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have now greatly expanded the reactions section. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work thus far! I will not be editing over the next several days, but I will return to this review next week. Edge3 (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I believe I have resolved all the issues you mentioned. I hope you are having a great vacation. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I enjoyed it very much -- thank you for asking! At this time, I believe that the article has met the GA criteria. (Note that I removed the non-free logo of Chapel Hill.) I will pass the GAN shortly. Thanks again for your efforts. Edge3 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. D. B. v. North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627115917/http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2009/pdf/190-09-1.pdf to http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2009/pdf/190-09-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

J. D. B. v. North Carolina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This article has lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. A large percentage of the "Opinion of the Court" section is blockquotes: these should either be reduced or more prose added to this section to contextualise the quotes. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.