Talk:Napue v. Illinois/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: White whirlwind (talk · contribs) 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: (Minor errors) The leading cite is incorrect: should be page 193, not 93.

3. Broad in coverage?: The section on the decision and the Court's opinion (misleadingly just called "Supreme Court") gives a decent overview. However, it's quite short. The "Subsequent developments" section is very sparse, and gives no concrete explanation of the decision's consequences. To be perfectly frank, I have real WP:Notability concerns with this article. A Google search using its name produces only 14,900 results, which is concerning for a SCOTUS case that touches on constitutional liberties. A HeinOnline search produced hardly any results directly treating the case in detail. Additionally, the lead describes the case as a "landmark" case, with the only citation for such a claim being a student's Note in a minor (outside Top 50) law review. That is not a very good verification.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Only one image of C.J. Warren, could do with another.

The article needs expansion with more citations to better-quality reliable sources. Try the major constitutional law and/or criminal law treatises, and search for major law review articles.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.—  White Whirlwind  咨  00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey White whirlwind, sorry for butting in here, but if the GA is failed (which I personally happen to strongly disagree with), shouldn't you replace the GA nominee template on the article's talk page with {{FailedGA}}? Right now the talk page gives the appearance that the article is still being reviewed.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: indeed I should have, thanks for reminding me.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)