User talk:Je7818/sandbox

This is a very impressive and comprehensive article! I had a few pieces of feedback, both what I liked and where I thought there was room to develop the piece, and both trivial and more substantial:

-Is there a district court citation for the prior history box? -I would unitalicize "accessible" in the abstract -I really like how comprehensive you have been with the cross references; it helps the reader a lot, and shows how many other important issues are implicated by this opinion -The facts section is very clear and accessible, and makes the moral/human element of the case evident without any editorializing -I would avoid language like "the judge agreed with X" or "denounced judicially created rules" and just say "held" (or whatever the equivalent is for dissents--argued?) -I would give the full title instead of the abbreviation for C.J.S. -I really like the news part of the further reading section since many of the articles we would normally go to will be inaccessible to general readers (both bc of ability to understand them and literal ability to get them). I wonder if there are even more mainstream articles to list? Also, to the extent there were reactions to the opinion (as distinct form implications), they could be interesting to include (briefly!).

These are all areas to potentially make the article even more powerful, but it is already really great as is!

Rjgins (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)