Talk:United States v. Grimaud
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File:Sierra Forest Reserve.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
edit
An image used in this article, File:Sierra Forest Reserve.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
File:Josephlamar.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
edit
An image used in this article, File:Josephlamar.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
File:USDA.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
edit
An image used in this article, File:USDA.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
Rewriting
editThe article, as indicated by the 'lacks encyclopedic tone' tag, was pretty poorly written and had clearly POV material throughout. I've removed all but the last section of the article body (which were poorly sourced to begin with) and re-wrote the article introduction as a concise summary of the text of the decision. I've taken the liberty of removing the tag, as now the issue it raised should be fixed.
--Doncurzio (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I see another user has reverted the edit; I would suggest that if removal of particular material is problematic, they rewrite those parts into the article with better sourcing and proper tone. I don't see any point in keeping the very POV material around, even if deleting it means deleting large parts of the article. If there's useful material, it's better added from a new slate without the POV cruft around it.
Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
editThis article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts, Amherst supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Link rot
editIn fixing the bare urls, I removed the rotten link: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=24+J.+L.+%26+Politics+169&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=81c22154d87cccccde70c479cb466849 I tried searching both on the lexisnexis database and in general for what that would link to as well as the text it was used to cite, to no avail whatsoever. Feel free to re-investigate, it has the potential to be a great reference, if it exists.