Talk:Kansas Supreme Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Kansas Supreme Court was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 17, 2007 |
 |
Kansas Supreme Court is part of WikiProject Kansas, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Review
The article is well written but doesn't cite its sources properly. Since there are enough references in the list I think this issue can be resolved quickly. I will be satisfied if there is an inline reference for every fact stated.
There are also some problems with article's structure.
- 1) The subdivision of the first section is not necessary. The current three subsection should be turned into paragraphes. In addition the judicial functions are more important than administrative, so they should be moved to the begining of the section. It is necessary to provide a brief summary of the structure of Kansas judical system (distric courts and appelatte courts).
- 2) The second section is now called "Jurists" but more apropriate title is "Justices". The same for the last subsection in it: should be called "Removing a justice".
- 3) The "Composition" and "Current justices" subsections in the second section should be merged.
- 4) The title of the third subsection should be changed to a plural form (i.e. "Controversies"). It's not necessary to subdivide this section and it should consist simply of four paragraphs. The names of the cases can be in bold or italic.
- 5) It would be beneficial if every case discussed in the third section had a date when it was resolved and the number.
- 6) The leading section doesn't give a summary of the article a should be rewritten.
I will put the article on hold and hope the issues will be resolved quickly. Ruslik 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody is interested in improving the article, I will fail it. Ruslik 08:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
