Talk:Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett

Comments from Notecardforfree
First and foremost, I want to thank you for your excellent contributions. This is a very well-written article and you have done an excellent job summarizing a fairly arcane topic (bankruptcy jurisprudence). I am very impressed by your work! I have a few comments, which I hope will help guide you when writing articles in the future:
 * 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. Specifically, you should make sure that any external links in the article conform to relevant style guidelines.
 * Incorporating commentary and analysis: When developing articles about SCOTUS cases, it is important to include commentary from scholars or other public response about the case. You did an excellent job incorporating commentary about Dewsnup, but you should also make sure to include a section about commentary for this case as well. However, when incorporating commentary and analysis, be sure to cover all perspectives according to the weight they are due (per WP:WEIGHT).
 * Duplication of article contents: Earwig's copyvio detector found significant overlap between the text of this draft and this other webpage. I predict that the text was duplicated on a mirror site (see WP:MIRROR), but can you shed any light on this?
 * References: THANK YOU for using Bluebook style citations! It is so important for SCOTUS articles to use the same citation style that appears in the Court's opinions, and you are clearly proficient in Bluebooking. When I write articles about recently published cases, I cite to the slip opinion (though your "S. Ct." citations are perfectly acceptable as well). However, when the opinions are published in the United States Reports, we'll probably want to go back and change the citations, as the Court often modifies its opinions prior to official publication (see Richard Lazarus' seminal article, The (Non)Finality of Supreme Court Opinions).

I hope you will continue to contribute to SCOTUS articles here on Wikipedia. Please feel free to reach out me if you have any questions or concerns; I am happy to serve as a resource if you ever need to know anything about how Wikipedia works. 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). In fact, there are only a handful of editors who work on SCOTUS articles. I am very excited to see that you are willing to help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply From Passerculus90
Thank you very much for your feedback on my draft! I greatly appreciate it. To speak to your comments:
 * Style and Layout: Thank you for pointing me to the formatting and style resources. I'll go back over my draft to ensure that it complies with the relevant formatting and style guidelines.
 * Incorporating commentary and analysis: I'll add a section in my draft regarding commentary on Caulkett in short course. (I'll also review the WP:WEIGHT policy to ensure that my commentary section accords with that policy.)
 * Duplication of article contents: The website you linked duplicates the text of my draft article. I'm not sure how or why that happened.
 * References: Ah, the Bluebook. I'd be remiss not to use Bluebook-style citations in writing about U.S. law; however, insofar as I'm proficient at Bluebooking, I share Judge Posner's sentiment that the Bluebook is "a monstrous growth." Richard A. Posner, The Bluebook Blues, (2011). When Caulkett is published in the United States Reports, the "S. Ct." citations that are currently in the article will be changed accordingly to reflect that fact.

I plan to keep contributing to SCOTUS articles on Wikipedia to the extent that I am able to do so. I am very glad to have found the U.S. Supreme Court cases WikiProject, and I look forward to contributing to it. Thanks again. Best, -- Passerculus90 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the internet is polluted with many websites that mirror Wikipedia's content. It can be a little frustrating to see the product of your labor manipulated by other websites, but of course, it's a risk that all writers take when they publish. Thanks again for your hard work! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Changing Page Name?
Thanks for rescuing this article from orphan status! I can't believe I missed the space between the "N" and the "A" in the case name—good grief! Would it be appropriate to move this page to a target page titled with the correct case name, i.e.—a page titled Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett? I'm still a bit unfamiliar with Wikipedia's general technical infrastructure, so I'm a bit nervous about screwing something up; that's the last thing I want to do. Please let me know what you think would be appropriate here. Thank you again for all of your help! I sincerely appreciate it. Best, -- Passerculus90 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the ultimate determination of the appropriate case title to your good judgment. MOS:LAW says that "[a]rticles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case," so I usually just use the title that is provided in the slip opinion. Also, by using the title in the slip opinion, it will automatically generate links from various lists of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia (see, e.g., 2014 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 575). That said, Bluebook rule 10.2.1(h) seems to indicate that there should not be a space between the "N" and the "A" in "N.A." and many other secondary sources omit the space. SCOTUSblog, for example, calls the case "Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett." It looks like you've already added a space in the case title in the body of this article, so for the sake of consistency, we may want to move the article title as well. If you do want to move the page, let me know and I can arrange for an administrator to delete the Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett page. Once that is done, I can then move this article to the new title (that will also create a redirect from the old title to the new title). Just let me know how you would like to proceed. Otherwise, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After reflection, I think it's best that the page be moved; let's do that. Please let me know if you need anything from me on my end to make that happen. Thanks again. Best, -- Passerculus90 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I have to attend a hearing at court today, so I may not be able to take care of this until later this evening, but I'll keep you updated. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made a move request at Requested moves/Technical requests, which is the forum that editors use for uncontroversial move requests that require deletion (in this case, the move will require deletion of the redirect I made last night). Also, because this is a recently created article, you may also want to consider nominating this for the "Did You Know?" section of the homepage (you can see instructions for nominations at T:TDYK -- feel free to let me know if you have questions about the process). This really is an excellent article and it might be nice to see it linked on the main page. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Much appreciated. I'll look into the "Did You Know?" nomination instructions; it would be pretty cool to see this article linked on the main page. Per your initial comments, I also added and sourced a new article section re: commentary on and analysis of Caulkett. Going forward, I plan to expand the current "Opinion of the Court" section into a broader "Supreme Court" section; I'd like to add a summary of (1) each side's respective argument(s) in the Supreme Court; and (2) the oral argument in the case. The inclusion of those summaries would about round out the article, I feel. I'm going to try to get that done over the next couple of weeks. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions for how I might improve the article. Thanks again for your help. Best, -- Passerculus90 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)