Template:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
Template:-Class td
|
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. |
| This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
 | This template is used on approximately 5,200 pages and changes may be widely noticed. Test changes in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in your own user subpage. Consider discussing changes on the talk page before implementing them. |
Template documentation transcluded from Template:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/doc.
Usage
{{WP_SCOTUS|class= |importance= |needs infobox= |flag= }}
These are the various options for each field using this template. Note: capitalization is unimportant (i.e. GA is the same as Ga or ga), though capitals are preferred.
Unassessed articles
- The following articles need to be assessed: Category:Unassessed U.S. Supreme Court articles
Script
- The following script User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js can be used to assess articles with ease.
Quality scale
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 FA{{FA-Class}} |
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. | Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. | No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. | Lawrence v. Texas |
 A{{A-Class}} |
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. | Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. | Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. | To be added |
 GA{{GA-Class}} |
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. | Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. | Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. | To be added |
| B {{B-Class}} |
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. | Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. | Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. | To be added |
| Start {{Start-Class}} |
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. Add example. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
|
Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. | Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. | To be added |
| Stub {{Stub-Class}} |
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. | May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. | To be added |
| NA {{NA-Class}} |
The is a non-article page, but relates to WikiProject SCOTUS. |
Priority scale
Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the biography falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).
| Label | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Top | High probability that those not particularly interested in the SCOTUS would look this up. Must have been highly influential. | Brown v. Board of Education |
| High | Must have been influential. | Miller v. California |
| Mid | Important. | Burger King v. Rudzewicz |
| Low | Notable, but relatively unimportant. | Cramer v. United States |
Infobox status
- Yes, if an infobox is needed
- No, optional for pages that contain a complete and accurate infobox
Flagged status
- Yes, use this if there is an issue with the page that needs to be addressed by members of WikiProject SCOTUS. Also, it is helpful to add a few lines about the issue on the talk page of the specific case article.