Talk:Young v. Facebook, Inc.

Young v. Facebook, Inc. was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 1, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Young v. Facebook, Inc. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 March 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Young v. Facebook, Inc., Judge Jeremy Fogel found that Facebook was not a physical place for the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act, despite its having "posts" and "walls"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Young v. Facebook, Inc..

Wikipedia

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Young v. Facebook, Inc./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

After reading the WP:LEAD and Facts section, I am impressed. However, subsequent sections seem to be sparse. I will probably have some requests for further detail. I think one section should be devoted to each of the six causes of action. I am not a legal scholar and think that the average person will get lost if you name 6 actions and have 4 sections describing them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- After considering this article, I think it fails for lack of breadth. I would expect that each action has a section at least as substantive as the facts section. Then the two court rulings should have large sections. This article is terribly incomplete.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Cyberlaw and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic