Talk:Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

message: The sentence "The plaintiffs in the case were Hill, Plater, and Donald Cohen." links the name Donald Cohen to an archived page ( https://web.archive.org/web/20131103171959/http://www.gth-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1224159.html ) which is fine as far as I know, but there is an updated page on the same site at http://www.gth-law.com/attorneys/cohen which is in the external links section at the bottom of the page, which could also be archived and then added as the external link directly from the name, (perhaps both could remain as references rather than an external link? although as reference I'm not sure that they quite back up what the wiki sentence is saying rather than just being a resume' of the person.) 176.62.39.68 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: external links switched to references

message: I replaced the US Constitution with the Endangered Species Act in the "Laws applied" section of the fact box. The case did not so much address any significant constitutional issues as decide how the Endangered Species Act should be interpreted (i.e. is ESA retroactive or not). Splat (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I linked the following on your page so far. Please feel free to unlink them if you feel it's interfering with the body of work on the page.
:* United States Supreme Court
:* snail darter
:* Little Tennessee River
They are all in your lead section, so I felt that would be the most important place to link subjects mentioned in the case.
Also, I forgot to mention what the minor edits were when I made them. So when you view your edit history and see my name without any explanation, it was these links that I added. Sorry about that.
Jpparrish (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "They argued for an exception to be made in this case since the dam was started prior to the Endangered Species Act being passed and claimed they should be grandfathered in."
Otherwise, great job so far!
Jpparrish (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Feedback

message: Please see general comments by User:Stuartyeates on articles generated by this class at Education Program talk:University of San Francisco/Environmental Law (Spring 2013)#Feedback_on_the_articles. Please respond there if you have any questions or comments. Dcoetzee 01:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments by Stuartyeates 

message: Nice work so far. The article is very informative. Giving enough detail without giving too much. It has nice organization and is easily followed. The writing needs to be cleaned up a bit. Here are some specific comments. These do not represent the totality of my comments but some things that jumped out at me.
Lead Section: Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: [section] and for an even more thorough treatment see: Guide to writing better articles. Aarf613 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments by Prof [[User:Aarf613|Aarf613]] ([[User talk:Aarf613|talk]]) 05:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 

message: This phrase in the lead needs work: "a lawsuit was filed against Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in violation of the Endangered Species Act". Was the lawsuit "alleging" or "claiming that"? As written, it seems that the lawsuit itself violated the Endangered Species Act.
First mention of a person should give the complete name: Warren E. Burger. Subsequent mentions should use just the surname.
Wikilink to United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, not the generic Court of appeals.
Please explain or delete mention of Hiram Hill's "suspension" from the University of Tennessee. If not directly relevant to the case, mentioning it may be considered a violation of WP:BLP.
You mention "Joseph Congleton (who led the citizen's initiative)". Am I missing the part where you described this "citizen's initiative"?
What is "canon of construction"?
You write "created in 1933 after the Great Depression". Certainly, the Great Depression went on much longer than 1933.
You write "it would not make economical sense to stop the project". I suspect that you mean "economic sense".
You write "joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall and Stevens". Please give full names at first mention, and Wikilink. Also Rehnquist and Blackmun.
Please Wikilink "Senators Howard Baker and John Culver".
Is "God committee" a notable term? If so, reference it. If not, delete it. Right now, it redirects to Death panel. Surely, that isn't what you had in mind. See instead Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978.
Careful proofreading and copy editing are in order. I would recast "Though that population of the snail darter did not survive they were later on found in other streams" as "Although that population of the snail darter did not survive, they were later on found in other streams", and I would mention and Wikilink the other streams.
I hope that my observations are helpful to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by Online Ambassador [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] 

message: TN and TM
There are so many pages out there that should be linking people back to your page. Don't hide your light under a Bushel! I started to do this here and there. There is the snail darter controvery page. The Endangered Species Act page that should at the very least have your page added to its See Also section. I think there should be some reference to the case in the ESA articles history section or a section on the ESA and the Supreme Court on the ESA page. But of course, that is going beyond the scope of this assignment.
And you should go to the snail darter section here on the ESA Amendments page, and name TVA v. HIll and link it back. I put in one link to your page.
The Tennessee Valley Authority article mentions the case here, but links to the snail darter controversy page. It should link to this one.
You should list this page in the see also section on the Tellico Dam page.
You should link the God Committee from your page to here. Aarf613 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Comments from [[User:Aarf613|Aarf613]] ([[User talk:Aarf613|talk]]) 21:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)) 

message: While this case is obviously related to the overall snail darter controversy, an article about a specific Supreme Court case and holding generally should NOT be merged into a general article about the topic.  Baker v. Carr should NOT be merged into the article on redistricting, nor should these articles be merged.  This is the purpose of a wikilink!  The Supreme Court case article includes specifics, like which justices were on which side and who wrote the opinions, that really have no place in the general article on the topic.  2600:1004:B14F:C56D:E44C:1AF5:E7CF:2C77 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge!