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 rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
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
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
Over half this article is about a single recent decision, and most of that section isn't even specifically about George. Shouldn't most of that info go on the page for the decision rather than the person, and this article's focus be more of an overview of notable opinions he's written on the Court? --Delirium (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is totally off-topic, but it dawned on me that our Chief Justice has a strong resemblance to that actor who plays an insurance salesman in the GEICO TV commercials. Too bad I can't note that in the article since it's original research. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2011 GA has some unsourced statements and prose issues (MOS:EDITORIAL, etc.) Additionally, this article may not be up to date (the latest information in the article was in 2013) and may also fail the broadness criteria (the article is quite sparse despite his roles). Spinixster(chat!)11:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I was pinged on this, as I have not edited this article, except that I am part of a related WikiProject. That said, the most recent edits appear to be from last year, and it makes sense that the most recent information is from 2013, as that is when the subject's public life basically ended. As for matters of copy editing and unverified content, this sounds like stuff that can be easily fixed. I hope I am not the only WikiProject member who was notified, so that way these issues can be resolved.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 15:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a word search for MOS:EDITORIAL, my word search didn't find any of those. The closest is notable cases sub-section header. I think it's fine to mention the cases as part of the subject's judicial history. Why those, I don't know why the article creator chose those specifically, but the content is verified to reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Words like "extremely unusual decision", "Oddly," "their evidence against Buono was so weak that it did not justify even an attempt to win at trial", etc. I am not too well-versed on these kinds of MOS policies, but those words do not sound encyclopedic. Spinixster(trout me!)01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
