Talk:Abramski v. United States

Uploading an Image
I would like to upload the image found in the following link, however I was not able to draw a final conclusion to whether this is allowed under fair use from WP:IUP.


 * http://www.thefranklinnewspost.com/news/local/grand-jury-indicts-abramski-on-bank-robbery-counts/article_6eb7b033-01ac-5efd-9dc7-1c24d2192c4a.html


 * http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1/6/1261522/-What-Straw-Purchase-a-Gun-Abramski-v-US


 * http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/6/3/1303838/-NOT-Breaking-News-SCOTUS-Continues-to-Deliberate-the-Straw-Purchase-Gun-Case

Thanks. WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, because it is evidently copyright to the Franklin News-Post, so it does not come under any of the four categories in WP:IUP. It couldn't be "Fair use" because pictures of living people fail WP:NFCCP #1 "no free equivalent is available, or could be created". JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Hey guys, my first complete article. Any feedback is welcome. WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi -- Thank you very much for taking the time to improve this article! Wikipedia is in desperate need of editors who are willing to write articles about United States Supreme Court cases (and all law articles, for that matter). I am very excited to see that you are willing to help. Of course, writing good content is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. I would like to offer a few comments with respect to writing articles about SCOTUS cases, and I hope these comments will help both this article as well as your future contributions to the encyclopedia:


 * Style and layout: For general information about formatting articles, see Wikipedia's manual of style at WP:MOS. Guidelines for formatting law-related articles can be found at MOS:LAW. There is also a style guide for writing articles about SCOTUS cases, which can be found at WP:SCOTUS/SG. I made a few stylistic changes to this article, but in general, you should make sure that articles comply with relevant style guidelines. You should also make sure that the formatting of the infobox complies with the directions that are listed at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case.
 * Introductory paragraphs: The introductory section of a Wikipedia article is called the "lead" (or "lede"). Relevant guidelines for writing lead sections can be found at WP:LEAD. In general, a lead section should provide the reader an overview of the article and why the topic is significant. Per WP:SCOTUS/SG, the very first sentence should explain the holding of the case. In the following sentences, I would then explain the factual background that gave rise to the case, a sentence or two about the court's ultimate ruling, and then explain the case's significance (see, e.g., the lead section at Reed v. Town of Gilbert).
 * Paragraph structure: In general, the purpose of a paragraph is to develop an idea that is expressed through sentences that build upon each other; paragraphs should use a strong topic sentence that introduces the reader to the topic that will be discussed in that paragraph, and the concluding sentence should tie everything together. Although there are plenty of articles that use one-sentence paragraphs, one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided (see WP:PARAGRAPHS). Instead, they should be incorporated with other paragraphs or expanded. Wikipedia's good article criteria requires articles to be "well-written," so it is important to make sure that prose is both readable and well-structured (see WP:GACR).
 * Citations: Per MOS:LAW, for articles about legal cases, it is recommended that editors use the citation style of the jurisdiction in which the case was heard. For SCOTUS cases, this will generally be Bluebook. However, it is important to keep the citation style consistent within the article (in fact, the GA criteria require consistency). That said, whenever you make a statement in the article about something that the Court said, held, our found, it is very important to include a citation to the page(s) of opinion to which you are referring (see relevant guidelines at WP:CITE). It is not sufficient to place a single citation to the opinion at the end of a paragraph, with no mention of the page(s) in the opinion that you are referencing.
 * Incorporating commentary and analysis: When developing articles about SCOTUS cases, it is essential to include commentary from scholars or other public response abut the case. This helps readers understand the case's significance and it is also an integral component of the breadth criterion at WP:GACR. However, it is important to present all perspectives per WP:WEIGHT (see also WP:NPOV) -- this is another important criterion for passing a GA review. Here, the commentary focuses on comments from the NRA. What have the NRA's opponents said about this? Also, for SCOTUS cases, it is particularly important to look at commentary that is published in law reviews (see, e.g., this commentary in the Harvard Law Review).


 * Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any help, but I want to emphasize how excited I am to see your contributions here. If you are interested in working on other law-related articles, you may also want to consider joining WikiProject Law and WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. Both projects are a fantastic resource for editors interested in writing legal articles. In any event, thank you again for your hard work, and I look forward to working with you! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Notecardforfree, thanks for the feedback and tips, will try to implement them in the future. WannaBeEditor (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to take on the review review for this article -- you are clearly a very talented editor and I think this article has a lot of potential. However, before beginning the review, I would ask that you first expand this article a bit (specifically, I would add background information about 18 U.S.C. 922 and expand the commentary/analysis section). Additionally, can you also add citations that include the specific page of the opinion that is being referenced (per WP:CITE)? Once that is done, feel free to ping me and I will begin the review. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for volunteering, I will act on your suggestions. I will start doing so within a few day, when I am done with prior commitments. WannaBeEditor (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Will start re-editing after the weekend. WannaBeEditor (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

New GA nomination
,, one of you still around? Can you accept the review? Sorry about last time, just couldn't get to it in time. WannaBeEditor (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I can do the GA review -- I am pretty busy during the first half of this week but I can probably get started on Thursday or Friday. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. It should go pretty quick, I acted on all of the previous reviewer's suggestions, I just didn't complete the last one in time. WannaBeEditor (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Majority and Kagan
I think Kagan's authorship of the majority opinion and how the Justices voted should be integrated into the body of the article, not just the infobox. Knope7 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * - Good point, you can go ahead and do it per WP:BOLD, or I will do it when I get time. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)