Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Courts of the United States/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:23, 27 December 2008.

Courts of the United States
I believe this is the first time anyone has ever listed every level and type of court in the Country, including defunct courts from the past - and I have provided a reference for every single one of the active ones. bd2412 T 09:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Quick-Fail  Sorry, but you need a lot more than just a referenced list of courts for this list to be featured. Ideally, you would need some prose for each state. I am not sure that a bulleted list is the best way to organize this info. See List of universities in Canada for a suggestion. In addition, web references need publishers and last access dates added to them. WP:LAYOUT breach, those navboxes should be at the bottom of the article. A couple of images need sources and other info added to them. Sorry, but I suggest withdrawing and working on the article some more before renominating. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I moved the navboxes down - that was easy. Fixing the web references will take a while. bd2412  T 13:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have formatted the references with the Reflinks tool; the publishers still need to be tweaked though. Also, yeah, it'd be nice to have prose for each state. But overall, great job on the list so far. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * The article is very nicely referenced, but I think it's too overcrowding. Could you divide the list into the Geographic Boundaries? For example, make an article called List of Courts of the United States in the First Circuit. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 01:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be odd to impose federal circuit divisions on lists which are predominantly state courts. I could just split it into a list of lists, as it were, with a separate page for each state (which would give a nice amount of room for exposition on the jurisdiction and history of each court). bd2412  T 02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway you want to is fine, as long as it is appropiate and each list should have 10 entries in it. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with User:Dabomb87 that bulleted list may not be the best way to show this info, but I am hesitant to oppose it right away since this isn't really a good reason to oppose. Anyway, I will try to review it to the best of my ability. — Chris!  c t 06:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Neutral
 * The lead maybe a little short given the size/length of this list. Try to include some historical info, perhaps
 * I notice a lot of redlinks, which are very distracting. Try to create so stubs or just remove the links all together
 * Some references aren't formatted correctly or missing info.
 * I used a bulleted list to convey the different levels of courts, with the more indented courts generally being under the appellate review of the less indented. I see that I need to explain that, and perhaps provide a smoother display of the fact. I would disagree with removing the red links. They accurately indicate what courts exist, and which ones need articles. I'd rather give a reader inspiration to make a full article on a court about which they may know, than to let them think one already exists. However, I'll start working through the missing articles. bd2412  T 18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming from another FLC discussion where some reviewers are hugely focused on perceived dissonance between name and content of the lists, I wonder if "Courts of the United States" is the correct name for this list. It is not a list of all courts in the United States as it does not include local ones. To me "of the United States" suggests that it is going to be Federal courts, but it includes state courts. Also, why "of" rather than "in". The courts of the United States seems Federal-only to me. In the United States would include state and local courts, in my view. How about "Federal, State, and Territorial Courts in the United States". Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The United States has two levels of courts, period - federal and state. "Local" courts are merely state courts of limited jurisdiction within the state. I can't think of a "local" court that exists in this country except as a construct of state law (with the possible unusual exception of Native American tribal courts, which really are permitted to exist under Federal law). bd2412  T 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am relatively uninformed, obviously, but surprised by what you say. If it is the case, then I think it should be stated in the article, indeed in the first paragraph where comprehensiveness is being asserted, that all local courts are in fact state courts.  Frankly, i am surprised that California, for example, would have as non-Federal courts just the "Supreme Court of California, the California Courts of Appeal (6 appellate districts), and Superior Courts of California".  I would have assumed there would be lower courts below "Superior Courts".  What about traffic courts, involved in enforcement of the state's vehicle code?  Are those part of the Superior Court system?  Traffic courts are real courts, too.  What about Family law courts, and small claims courts?  I assume you are right, if you say so, that these are all included, but I think it should be explicitly stated that this article covers even traffic and small claims courts, if it does. doncram (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see from the California Superior Court article that there are just Superior courts now, but if this article is supposed to cover defunct courts as asserted in the nom, the municipal and other courts previously in place should be mentioned. "At one point in the early 20th century, California had as many as six types of inferior courts of limited jurisdiction under the superior courts".  What were the six?  To reiterate, I think clarification in the intro about even traffic and small claims, and both criminal and civil courts are being covered.  Perhaps there should be clarification that the list covers all court systems, not all individual courtrooms ("Parts"?) which are perhaps too numerous to enumerate or otherwise are not wikipedia-notable. doncram (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have changed my opposition to "Weak Oppose". Here are some comments: Please do not take my oppose and criticism of the article the wrong way; I want to see this list become a Featured List as much as you do, and your hard work in meticulously organizing and referencing the information has really made a mark on this article. It just needs to take those final steps towards perfection before it can attain FL status—the hardest ones to do. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that asking you to write prose for each section of the list is overly demanding and unrealistic within the time limits here at FLC. Instead, could the lead be expanded by a paragraph or two? Perhaps describe the court hierarchy a little more, and also some historical background on the formation of the current court system.
 * Some of the defunct courts lack references, for example Former federal courts of North Carolina.
 * Lastly, it would really help my perception of the list—and maybe translate into a "Support" ;)—if the court lists for each state were organized better than a tiered bulleted list (separate tables for each hierarchy?).
 * Some references still need formatting. Also, some references that have publisher info are really non-descriptive, i.e. "Mssc.state.ms.us.", can you give the actual name of the site or organization?
 * I'll work on it. I have split the page into discrete transcluded lists to make this easier. Regarding, the non-descriptive publisher info, I think the links were more descriptive before they were tool-formatted to meet MOS guidelines. bd2412  T 06:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.