# Talk:Crimes Act of 1790

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crimes Act of 1790/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.


### Additional Notes
Why is McCulloch v. Maryland piped to M'Culloch v. Maryland?  I realize that either style may be correct with regards to this Scottish convention and that conceivably it could even be MacCulloch, but the case has generally been known as McCulloch since its hearing.  Where is the evidence that plantiff used/preferred/whatever the alternate spelling?  75.200.109.125 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a quote. Savidan 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)