Untitled

[edit]

I added a couple of sentences about ejusdem generis and a direct reference to Footnote Four, both of which are critical to the validity, applicability, and historic context of Ely's position Democracy and Distrust. Ryanluck 01:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the clause "Gideon had scrawled his petition for certiorari from a prison cell in his own handwriting." isn't as dramatic as first appears. As I understand it Gideon was filing a habeas corpus petition, and the state (and Supreme Court to this day) did (do) not recognize right to counsel for a writ of habeas corpus. Thus many such petitions are filed by the inmates seeking such writs. Ryanluck 05:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnoes

[edit]

Can someone tell me how Wikipedia lets me put in footnotes? I have a copy of Democracy and Distrust and can list page numbers, etc. 68.100.92.114 04:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hart Ely. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Hart Ely/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: X750 (talk · contribs) 08:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent prose writing, editor has passion for the subject & put a lot of time & effort into it. Consistent use of Oxford comma too. However, I would remove a tad of editorialisation (a good thing, shows editor is really engaged), took a lowly position as a public defender in San Diego. Remove "lowly". take a modest position as a public defender. Remove "modest". writing tirelessly to produce a set of legal memoranda. Replace "writing tirelessly" with "putting in significant effort". Remove all contractions too per MOS:CONTRACTIONS. of Stanford Law School,[25] remaining on the faculty until 1996. I'd replace "on" with "with". Replace "matriculated" with "enrolled". The Wages of Crying Wolf projected a profound influence. Replace "projected a profound influence" with "had a profound".
@X750 I can acquiesce to most of the changes above, but I would like to make a case for keeping lowly and modest; they add flair to the article, and I believe it keeps the reader engaged to a certain extent. Some wiggle room is allowed I think as I don't believe the prose diverges too much from an article like Learned Hand or Antonin Scalia. GuardianH (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Excellent prose writing, editor has passion for the subject & put a lot of time & effort into it. Consistent use of Oxford comma too.
    However, I would remove a tad of editorialisation (a good thing, shows editor is really engaged), took a lowly position as a public defender in San Diego. Remove "lowly". take a modest position as a public defender. Remove "modest". writing tirelessly to produce a set of legal memoranda. Replace "writing tirelessly" with "putting in significant effort". Remove all contractions too per MOS:CONTRACTIONS. of Stanford Law School,[25] remaining on the faculty until 1996. I'd replace "on" with "with". Replace "matriculated" with "enrolled". The Wages of Crying Wolf projected a profound influence. Replace "projected a profound influence" with "had a profound".
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No hints of WP:SYNTH. Potentially contestable statements all well-sourced. All sources are reputable. Earwig throws up high numbers but the quotes used are all attributed, and I believe give good context to the surrounding prose and are worth mentioning.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No complaints here.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Both sides of the fence included, critics and supporters alike.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Nada.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Can't really think of anything much else that could be included.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Minor changes. Should be an easy pass.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by GuardianH (talk). Self-nominated at 09:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: @GuardianH: Good article. Article is sourced, hook is interesting, and the QPQ is not required. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories