Jump to content

Talk:Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBrown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 18, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
March 14, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 16, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in the 1984 Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey gaming law requiring union leaders to be of good moral character?
Current status: Delisted good article

Oh

[edit]

This was a very high-quality article, all things considered. It was extremely informative, and I'm quite impressed. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA status reviewed — kept

[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lede too short

[edit]

Lede fails WP:LEAD, does not adequately summarize entire contents of article. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed GA in 2007. Our quality standards have since improved greatly, and this no longer meets them. There are claims that lack citations and the lead fails MOS:LEAD in its length and coverage. The prose arguably fails GA#1 too, due to its jumpy layout. Anarchyte (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]