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 articles
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 articles
Thanks for your work on this article! Unfortunately it's not ready for Good Article status right now, but I hope this review gives you the feedback needed to improve the article. Feel free to come back for another review once you've incorporated these suggestions.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The article could go through some copyediting to improve readability and conciseness.
Too much reliance on transcripts, briefs, and other documents related to the case. These are considered primary sources, and should not form the basis of the article's commentary on the case. See WP:PRIMARY.
Add more information on reactions from the legal community or the mainstream media, practical effects going forward, etc. You somewhat address this in the lead section, but you can elaborate more in the rest of the article.
The "Supreme Court" section appears too long and goes into a lot of detail. Once you switch from using primary sources to secondary sources, you'll have a better sense of what information is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Also keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT requires you to avoid giving undue weight to information not contained in reliable sources. Also see WP:SS for tips on how long the article should be.