Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schmerber v. California/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2015.

Schmerber v. California

 * Nominator(s): Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important United States Supreme Court cases of the twentieth century. In Schmerber, the Court established that police cannot forcibly intrude into the human body (i.e. by taking blood samples, taking tissue samples, or forcing people to undergo surgery) without a warrant. The Court also established that physical evidence taken from the body is not "testimonial" and the prosecution's use of such evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment's protections against forced self-incrimination. I have used the Bluebook citation style for this article, which is the prefered citation style for legal scholarship. Although many editors dislike Bluebook, it is a perfectly acceptible citation style, per MOS:LAW and WP:CITEVAR (it has also been used by other Featured Articles, such as United States v. Kagama and United States v. Washington). Thank you in advance for everyone who reviews this! Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Atsme
Nicely written. Will comment further after I do a little copyediting. Atsme 📞📧 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Per FA criteria:
 * prose is of a professional standard;
 * comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
 * well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
 * neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
 * stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
 * It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
 * a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;
 * Bluebook ref acceptable
 * Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
 * Support Atsme 📞📧 23:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

 * Support. My thanks to the FA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to my comments, above. Thank you for your efforts to improve this article about a fascinating intersection between topics of the law and WP:Human rights. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Minor4th
A couple of minor points/suggestions:

1. I would like to see a picture of  Justice Brennan, who delivered the majority opinion. As far as I know, all FA legal articles contain a picture of the justice delivering the majority opinion.

2. In the lede, where you say "warrantless blood sample taken in this case was justified under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception" - the paragraph would be more cohesive if you briefly describe what the circumstances were that were considered exigent.

3.  Your See also section contains links to cases that you have also wikilinked and linked in the body and references. I think you should remove those from the See also section.

4. I love your excellent use of Bluebook citation style and explanatory footnotes.

Good job.

Support. Minor4th  21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your support ! Per your suggestions, I made the following modifications to the article:
 * 1. I added a picture of Justice Brennan next to the discussion of the majority's opinion
 * 2. In the lead, I explained what the exigent circumstance was in this case
 * 3. I cleaned up the redundant links in the see also section
 * I truly appreciate your willingness to offer your feedback for this FA review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.