Talk:Oregon Supreme Court/Archive 1

Current Justices
In regards to the current movement of the list, I think we may want to go back to having them listed where they were before, but in maybe a simple table. The template/list is great, but really more suited for the bios of those justices. Templates/lists usually go on the bottom, which is where somebody moved it here. But I think the information should be higher up. Maybe a little table with: Name, Title, Year Joined, Term ends, Law School. Thoughts? Aboutmovies 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'm the one that moved the template list. I'm used to seeing such lists at the bottoms of pages. It seems to me that templates near the top are usually vertical, and along the right hand side of the page (see Gordon Smith for one example.) I understand your reasoning, and I don't feel terribly strongly about it either way. One other possibility, though - maybe have the list in prose near the top, and repeated in the template at the bottom as well? -Pete 09:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it! -Pete 12:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I added it to the page. Also, FYI since I know you work on the gov stuff, the building that the OSC is in is also used by the Court of Appeals and Tax Court, so the exterior pictures for OSC could be used on those articles too. Aboutmovies 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that - thanks for pointing it out. Again, great work on this page! -Pete 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Template Idea
For Oregon Courts, I'm thinking maybe a template to go at the bottom that would be something like this:
 * Title: Oregon Courts
 * OSC, Tax Court, Court of Appeals, etc.
 * Current OSC justices list
 * OSC Former Chief Justices list

Then all of the court pages/judge bios, could have them. What do you all think? Aboutmovies 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
I think that this article conforms to all of the GA requirements except that of breadth (perhaps better to speak of depth here). IANAL, but it seems like there might be more to say about the Oregon Supreme Court, particularly in the History section -what happened in the past 100 years? Is there anything that can be added to the Administrative and Powers sections? (As written, they're rather telegraphic.) I have placed the GA on hold at this time. Chubbles 07:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can try to address those issues, but please remember this is GA and not FA. The fact that you speak of depth shows that you may be analyzing with an eye more towards FA. GA wants breadth, then that breadth can be expanded into depth to move toward FA. As the GA criteria states:
 * 3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
 * (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[4] and
 * (b) stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
 * I'll see if I can add to the history, but the other parts really can't be expanded without simply making stuff up to add. Aboutmovies 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will trust your judgment on the breadth of the Admin/Powers sections...but I would like to see whether or not there's anything that can be added to the History section as regards what's happened since 1913. Thanks. Chubbles 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Chubbles 05:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To FA checklist
Items to work on with goal of FAC. Then work on de-redlnking everything. Aboutmovies 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Add info on Senior Judges, probably to Election section (expand on election info and who appoints)
 * Create article on Building (state law library inside), then have section here with see main
 * Create List of Oregon judges (have started offline) with a see main at Notable Justices section, move notable below list of chiefs
 * Expand Powers/Jurisdiction areas by explaining terms to make easier to read/understand for those not familiar with legal terms
 * Start section for OSC cases that went to SCOTUS
 * Change color/look of List of Chief Justices and add pictures of justices alongside mixed in with building shots
 * Continue History expansion
 * Expand opening paragraph just a bit
 * Info on traveling around state to hold court (mainly law schools)
 * Info on Oregon reporter (1 or. 17)
 * Standardize/full refs
 * MOS work; conversions if needed and dashes
 * Add info on the current make up of the court so there is a paragraph before the table
 * Add paragraph lead for famous cases, convert section to table format as well
 * Finish old list above and take to FA. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What's a notable judge
I see the list of notable former Supreme court judges, and wonder if there is some standard for being 'notable'.

For example it seems to me listing  could be based on the individuals contribution in their capacity as a judge or because they  have a life outside of being a judge.

For example, Oregon's current governor is on the list. He was a successful politican before he was elected to the court and has been governor since, making him 'notable' outside the court, but as one who served on the court only briefly he actual contribution to the court is likely minimal as compared to many justices who have toiled there fairly invisibily for many years.

Supreme court justices are generally expected to refrain from being involved in not judicial things while on the court so as to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest, so you don't see judges with their name in the paper for things they did while judge usually--- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rvannatta (talk • contribs).
 * It's not that they are notable for being a judge, its being notable in general in or outside their work on the court. Much like a list of alumni on a college article, where usually the person is notable for their work after college. Originally it was a place to list the non-chief justices who had articles, but now that articles exist for all the justices past and present just a few notable ones remain. Aboutmovies 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (kept)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. After making some improvement to it, I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)