Talk:New Hampshire Supreme Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Hampshire Supreme Court was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. Delisted version: December 8, 2006

	This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-priority on the priority scale.

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Someone should update the history of the education cases to reflect the new decision handed down on September 8, 2006 rendering the latest education funding plan of the State Legislature unconstitutional. I don't know enough to write the update myself, unfortunately. TheDean 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Please attend to these concerns in order to get through GA process:

• Both images don't give their fair use rationales.
• The Lead section doesn't represent the breadth of the article.

All the other criteria are met. Lincher 02:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead has been expanded to better cover the entire article. The old publicity photo was removed, and the seal used at the top-right of the article contains a fair use notice for being an official seal. I believe the editing addresses your concerns. --Assawyer 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than 7 days, and I see no reason to disagree with Lincher's original assessment, the concerns seem to be alleviated, so im promoting this. My main advice would be to, if at all possible, expand the references, and try looking at other state Supreme court articles for inspiration. If one of them is an FA, think about conforming this article's style with that one if possible, should give it more chance of making FA status. Homestarmy 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 14:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)