# Talk:Taylor v. Illinois

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taylor v. Illinois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Infobox
No issues


### Lead
No issues


### Background
Taylor sought a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to review his case. → Verifiable?


### Opinion of the Court
No issues


### Notes
No issues


### References
No issues

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix the mistake (I would fix it myself, but I am not sure if it can be verified). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it went to the Supreme Court means he appealed the case... looking at other case articles, it seems there isn't a specific cite given for such a sentence. Is it okay as is then?
Thanks for the review! Lord Roem (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Any update? I think I answered your issue above. Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response; I got busy in real life. Since the issues have been addressed, I feel comfortable passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)