# Talk:McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

The third paragraph under Subsequent Law is based entirely on a single newspaper report from June 2011. That paragraph ends, "That bill is pending as of June 2011." Surely by now, five years later, the bill is, one way or the other, no longer pending. I have poked around a little but have not found its resolution. I will keep looking. Dgndenver (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

this article could use a bit of work.
no mention of talley v california, the landmark case mcintyre built on. no discussion of citizens united, which may have created an exception for corporate speech.
i happen to know a lot about this case. gtbear at gmail aka arbitrary aardvark
came here hoping to find a photo of mcintyre. 50.90.215.156 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)robbin stewart

This review is transcluded from Talk:McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 08:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


### Introduction
### Your GA nomination of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.  This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. 


### Review Results
Additional Comments: This is a really good article and, holistically speaking, deserves GA status. Once corrected, this will be a beneficial addition to the GA list.

@Babegriev: Thank you for taking the time to review this article. In response to your notes on 2b, I made this change which cites the case's syllabus/headnote at page 335 as you suggested for the vote tally and list of case opinions. Regarding MOS:LEADCITE, as you mentioned, the guideline does not require inline citations to be present in the lead section in every article, and in this case I don't think they are necessary. I don't think anything in the lead section is all that controversial, since they are verifiable in the body, and other GA-class articles about Supreme Court cases have historically not needed inline citations in the lead, e.g. Lafler v. Cooper and Plumhoff v. Rickard. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns, and I would be happy to respond. Again, thanks. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


### Updated Review After Hold
@Babegriev: Thanks again for your review! Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)