Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lawrence v. Texas/archive1
This has been nominated before, but was not selected as a featured article. I’ve made some edits [1], and it looks pretty good. Neutrality 04:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- (Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#June_2003.)
- Approve - It was a great artilce before your refactor and it is even better now. --mav 01:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Acegikmo1 21:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The public response should be noted as well - this one was international news. Are pictures possible? e.g. notable reaction from the public?- David Gerard 10:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)- Nice pics! Who is the other guy in the second pic? Garner? The public reaction and news quotes should be a section, that would cover public reaction reasonably easily. See Hutton Inquiry for an excellent example of media reaction coverage, though I'm not asking for something that good - David Gerard 22:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Er. The pics really need why they are fair use. At present there's just a link to the source and the assertion this is fair use - David Gerard 22:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)- Done, thanks. Neutrality 02:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Aaand the lawyer pic! - David Gerard 16:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'll withdraw the 'public reactions' objection if you can source the lawyer pic - the pics tell that story nicely - David Gerard 16:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Fine by me - David Gerard 15:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Neutrality 02:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Nice pics! Who is the other guy in the second pic? Garner? The public reaction and news quotes should be a section, that would cover public reaction reasonably easily. See Hutton Inquiry for an excellent example of media reaction coverage, though I'm not asking for something that good - David Gerard 22:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Suporting for good measure. Ambivalenthysteria 15:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Object. I think the notes section is an excess of detail; could we trim this, and provide an external link instead? — Matt 16:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Not for a legal article it isn't. I consider your objection invalid. --mav 03:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but perhaps you could elaborate -- I'm not sure why the fact it's on a legal topic has any bearing. The notes section is longer than the history section, and doesn't really provide detail that would be of interest to the general reader; it seems to me that the article would be better off without it. — Matt 03:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Because it lists a lot of detail that would interrupt the flow of the text but still is necessary for reference (knowing just who wrote amicus briefs is important - the Notes section is no different than a complete list offered in any other article). --mav 03:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Long lists in articles that aren't central to the topic (but still useful for reference) are commonly split out into separate articles; perhaps that's an alternative? — Matt 03:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That is only done when the list is overwhelming the article. That is not the case here. --mav 20:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Long lists in articles that aren't central to the topic (but still useful for reference) are commonly split out into separate articles; perhaps that's an alternative? — Matt 03:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Because it lists a lot of detail that would interrupt the flow of the text but still is necessary for reference (knowing just who wrote amicus briefs is important - the Notes section is no different than a complete list offered in any other article). --mav 03:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but perhaps you could elaborate -- I'm not sure why the fact it's on a legal topic has any bearing. The notes section is longer than the history section, and doesn't really provide detail that would be of interest to the general reader; it seems to me that the article would be better off without it. — Matt 03:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Not for a legal article it isn't. I consider your objection invalid. --mav 03:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)