Talk:Law review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not been assessed
If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

Contents

[edit] from Vfd

On 19 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Law review for a record of the discussion.

[edit] Law review = joke in academia

This is a good article but it fails to mention that participation on the law review is very time consuming and often highly irritating. Membership does have, as the article notes, excellent and long lasting benefits.

This should be a section. [1] lots of issues | leave me a message 08:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Law reviews are a joke in academia? This is a really big claim and can hardly be supported by a few blog entries by some law profs. --PullUpYourSocks 17:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law Review vs. Journal

A solid article but it fails to note the difference between the law review and secondary journals -- even at parts conflating the two. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean secondary source? Because a law review is a secondary source. --PullUpYourSocks 17:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe he means between "the" Law Review (of which each school has one), and other law reviews/law journals put out by law student groups. For example, Harvard has the Harvard Law Review, but other student organizations put out the Harvard Environmental Law Review, Harvard Latino Law Review, Harvard Journal of Women in Law, and so forth. -- BD2412 talk 21:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Added to footnote linking to Richard Posner's anti-law review article from 2004. Wl219 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there a paragraph on Hofstra's "idea" section?

This is not notable at all. Self-aggrandizement, should be deleted.

Agreed. - Tarfu92 15:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Section?

The second half of the section titled 'Law Reviews as academic Journals' seems to be more like the history and maybe the breadth of law reviews. Suggest to separate it out and expand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldrobertsoniii (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean a separate section, not a separate article, yes? bd2412 T 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
correct, I went ahead and moved to to a separate section, as well as separating in another section the content that seemed to discuss the fact and controversy of law reviews being student-run.Donald (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)