Talk:Burton v. United States/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 15:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
- My best guess is John Francis Dillon (commissioner), but I cannot find any confirmation. I don't want to build a Frankenstein, so I've left it pointing to the dab page for now. Savidan 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I would have thought John Forrest Dillon, but a quick check didn't show anything either. GregJackP Boomer! 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have confirmed that it was John Forrest Dillon. The NYT describes him as a former judge. Savidan 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I would have thought John Forrest Dillon, but a quick check didn't show anything either. GregJackP Boomer! 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)