Judy Sheindlin was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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 within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business 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.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges 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.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
I would like to see the lead expanded a bit - maybe by two or three sentences that help to summarize the article a bit more thoroughly.
I've attempted to do that. Happyme22 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "But Sheindlin was becoming a rising star, and her fame was spreading." at the end of the Law career section is peacocky and unneeded, IMO.
I'm not so sure. I included that as a sort of transition into the next section, and to inform readers that her fame was indeed spreading. Happyme22 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that something like this would make a good transition. However, "rising star" and "fame was spreading" are unencyclopedic. Perhaps change it to something like "After her retirement, Sheindlin continued to receive increasing amounts of public attention."
I've added a fact tag in one place where I would like to see a reference.
I have hopefully resolved that. The divorce is a well-known fact, but the motives were indeed uncited and I cannot seem to find one at this time. Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Ref #3 (MSN) a reliable reference?
I should have clarified; that's MSN Encarta Encyclopedia. The same source is used at other prominent articles, including GA George W. Bush. Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This actually looks to be published by MSN Movies, and written by someone else. How is this reliable?
You are correct. I was confusing this with another source. No matter, though, because I have removed the reference altogether. Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Ref #4 (Judgejudy.com) is reliable for non-controversial facts about her (where she got her law degree, how many kids she has), it is not reliable for claims made about her (such as the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the Law career section) and as such should be replaced in these latter instances.
I disagree. This is the official biography of Judge Judy and as such I see nothing wrong with citing it for what seems to be significant and important achievements in Sheindlin's career. Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errrr, yes. Except that it's a biography on a website that is promoting her and her show. That means that everything is going to be shown in the most favorable light possible. Here are the exact phrases I have problems with being cited to this website, and the reasons:
She earned a reputation as one of New York's toughest judges. - If she's the only one saying she has this reputation, then it's not a very solid reputation. If an independent source said she has a reputation, that's one thing; if she says she has a reputation, that's a completely different thing.
Sheindlin is credited with pioneering the idea of an "open court policy", which allowed members of the public and the media to view the proceedings of court, an uncommon practice. - Really? Who credits her with this?
The rest of the things being cited to this I have no problem with, because they are either non-controversial or personal information that she has no reason to try to fudge. However, the above two statements are mainly opinion, and citing an outside opinion (reputation, being credited with something) to the person in question is just asking for it to be biased towards the person giving you the information.
Okay, I have reworded it and provided different citations. Happyme22 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few prose/MOS and referencing issues with this article, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the comments that are finished, but I still have questions/problems with a few other things. Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sorry about all the confusion. Happyme22 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheindlin has recently been involved in a legal dispute over packaging fees for the show. Coverage of this should be added. It's complicated and I haven't been following it so I won't do it myself.Bill (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
b (MoS): 
