Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Marshall Harlan II/1

John Marshall Harlan II

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Keep. This was effectively an individual reassessment and the issues raised were fixed. Geometry guy 11:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notified: WP:WPBIO, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, WP:LAW, Lord Emsworth (inactive leading editor), Ruslik0 (2nd leading editor)

Upon review of the article history at Talk:John Marshall Harlan II this article was not properly nominated and passed. However, the article has previously survived a WP:GAR nomination and is outside of my area of expertise, so I did not delist it myself. The article is very poorly cited.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article actually contains lots of case citations, which, in my opinion, enough for the jurisprudence section. To solve the problem with some cn tags, it is necessary to convert some refs in Additional reading section into inline citations. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Can you convert the inline citations?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think this article should use a template like ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think now the article is properly cited. Ruslik (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw at least three cases where the ussc template was not used. I think each case should have this template if you don't want to go with inline footnote citations.  Great work otherwise though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this now is pretty much up to standard. I am not sure whether law articles should have the ussc template inside tags.  If anyone else has an opinion on this matter that would be useful.  I am pleased to see everything tagged with the template. Now, everything is verifyable for the reader with WP:RSs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a second Brown (maybe because it is the second reference of this case), Adderley v. Florida (1966), Carrington v. Rash (1965) still not converted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I cited all cases. Can not find anything uncited. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks for helping. Now a reader can really verify things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would still appreciate an opinion on whether some of the template case citations should be in ref tags.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be, but I don't think it is necessry in this article. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)