This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I did not discern an established citation style in the article. Since the Wikipedia standard citation templates produce Chicago Manual of Style references (with some minor exceptions), and since Chicago is closest to the standard legal scholarship style, Bluebook, let's stick with the Windy City. I suspect Chicago will be the easiest style for most editors as well. If you disagree, please reply. I have an open mind and this is a consensus process anyway; no dictators allowed. ;-) - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) 06:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Article's Quality is Now Better than Start-Classedit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
At least that's my humble opinion. I'm a member of WP:USA, and today I changed our Quality rating from Start-class to C-class. I actually think it qualifies for B-class, but I didn't want to leap that far in one hop. I am not a member of WP:LAW or WP:USCJ, so I will not change those two WikiProjects' quality ratings. However, I would encourage any members of one or both of those WikiProjects to consider upgrading this article's quality rating to C-class. // Thank you and "job well done!" to those of you who have worked on this article. I admire the smooth, easily comprehensible prose and the pithy end result. :o) - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
