Talk:Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph

Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph that arbitration agreements do not need to discuss the costs of arbitration?

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

Footnotes should go after the punctuation, not before.

"with the finality of certain arbitration decisions."->"with the finality of trial court decisions to uphold arbitration agreements."

Reword: " there was no way to vacate the initial judge's decision."

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

11th Circuit decision should be supported by footnotes to the 11th circuit opinion.

How about parallel cites to L.Ed. and S.Ct.?

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Explain that Randolph claimed that the uncertain costs of arbitration undercut her rights under the Truth in Lending Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Can you explain what effects this case had? Were there more arbitrations as a result? Are there any law review articles discussing this case?

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has not participated in Wikipedia since March 13, the day before this review. I have reached out to him without a response, so I am respectfully failing the article, with the hope that he comes back, considers the concerns noted, and renominates after revising the article. I am sorry that it did not work out. Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]