Talk:Certificate of division

Certificate of division has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 19, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall (pictured) wrote that he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone"?

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Certificate of division/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Good writing

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: The only item I would address (and which is not in the GA criteria) is a redlinked "For further information" in the In Civil Cases section - it seems to me that this needs to be removed until the redlinked article is actually written. I am a fan of redlinks in lists and other areas, but it seems to me that if we are putting a link for readers to get further info, then the article should already be present. As is normally the case, you have done a very good job with this article.
Pass or Fail: