 | Taylor v. Illinois has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 17, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Taylor v. Illinois that defendants do not have an absolute right to obtain witnesses in their favor? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Taylor v. Illinois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Infobox
edit- No issues
Lead
edit- No issues
Background
edit- Taylor sought a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review his case. → Verifiable?
Opinion of the Court
edit- No issues
Notes
edit- No issues
References
edit- No issues
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix the mistake (I would fix it myself, but I am not sure if it can be verified). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that it went to the Supreme Court means he appealed the case... looking at other case articles, it seems there isn't a specific cite given for such a sentence. Is it okay as is then?
- Thanks for the review! Lord Roem (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Any update? I think I answered your issue above. Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response; I got busy in real life. Since the issues have been addressed, I feel comfortable passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Any update? I think I answered your issue above. Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)