Jump to content

Talk:Crimes Act of 1790

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCrimes Act of 1790 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 19, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that, as a U.S. Senator, future Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth (pictured) drafted a statute that authorized punitive, court-ordered dissection of convicted murderers' corpses?


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Crimes Act of 1790/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Pass Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Pass Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Pass Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Pass Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Pass Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Pass Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Pass Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Pass Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Pass, good job

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

M'Culloch v. McCulloch

[edit]

Why is McCulloch v. Maryland piped to M'Culloch v. Maryland? I realize that either style may be correct with regards to this Scottish convention and that conceivably it could even be MacCulloch, but the case has generally been known as McCulloch since its hearing. Where is the evidence that plantiff used/preferred/whatever the alternate spelling? 75.200.109.125 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote. Savidan 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]