Talk:Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin

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.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin 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
January 28, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 6, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 6, 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 29, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin began the regulation of wellhead natural gas prices, which lasted until Congress deregulated them on January 1, 1985?
Current status: Former good article nominee

GAN result

This article was nominated for good article status on 26 January 2011. I've declined this nomination on the grounds that it fails the following criteria: 2) (b), (c). AGK [•] 13:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This review of mine has somewhat slipped. I was aware that the main editor was not available, and I used that as a reason to doing other tasks. I'm now going document my findings so far on this nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this part of the review I'm going to go through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until after the last section. I will be mostly highlighting "problems", but I may fix minor ones as a go, so they may not be listed here. If I don't comment much on a particular section , that indicates that it is OK. Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background -

Note 1, which gives a direct quotation from Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act really needs a link/citation back to the original text of the Act.

Proceedings below -

I find the title "strange": (1) it seems unfinished; (2) is "below" necessary? The next section is titled Supreme Court, so perhaps "below" is an American term for court proceedings below that of the Supreme Court - I'm not a US citizen, so I'm not familiar with this terminology.
The first paragraph is well referenced, but it seems to be "floating" out of time:

No date of creation for the FPC - perhaps this is not too important.
In the final paragraph a date is given for the start of the investigation - the first mention is given here, but as it is date later on I'll let this one go.
Olds' failure to be re-elected is mentioned in some detail, but again there is no date for this, i.e. when did he get push off?

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715144815/http://c0403731.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/collection/papers/1960/1960_1221_Landis_report.pdf to http://c0403731.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/collection/papers/1960/1960_1221_Landis_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]