Talk:Law review

message: I fail to see how how the picture of two doors, even though they happen to be of a law review's office, in any way adds to the completeness of this article, any understanding of what a law review is, or what purpose a law review serves. Which is why I'm deleting it, because it's a pointless distraction, and a needless use of space. If you want to share your holiday snaps, use Picasa!! GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does the picture help? 

message: This is a good article but it fails to mention that participation on the law review is very time consuming and often highly irritating.  Membership does have, as the article notes, excellent and long lasting benefits.
This should be a section.   lots of issues  | leave me a message 08:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Law reviews are a joke in academia? This is a really big claim and can hardly be supported by a few blog entries by some law profs. --PullUpYourSocks 17:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a very big claim. They are a joke within the study of law, too. They aren't usually peer reviewed, and they don't usually even have a thesis or a thesis related to a legal issue. Snailfacts (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law review = joke in academia 

message: A solid article but it fails to note the difference between the law review and secondary journals -- even at parts conflating the two.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 05:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean secondary source? Because a law review is a secondary source. --PullUpYourSocks 17:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he means between "the" Law Review (of which each school has one), and other law reviews/law journals put out by law student groups. For example, Harvard has the Harvard Law Review, but other student organizations put out the Harvard Environmental Law Review, Harvard Latino Law Review, Harvard Journal of Women in Law, and so forth. -- BD2412 talk 21:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Added to footnote linking to Richard Posner's anti-law review article from 2004. Wl219 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Review vs. Journal 

message: This is not notable at all. Self-aggrandizement, should be deleted.
: Agreed. - Tarfu92 15:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a paragraph on Hofstra's "idea" section? 

message: The second half of the section titled 'Law Reviews as academic Journals' seems to be more like the history and maybe the breadth of law reviews. Suggest to separate it out and expand it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldrobertsoniii (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a separate section, not a separate article, yes? bd2412 T 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: correct, I went ahead and moved to to a separate section, as well as separating in another section the content that seemed to discuss the fact and controversy of law reviews being student-run.Donald (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section?

message: While a law review might be a type of journal, the activity is universally known as "Law review". bd2412 T 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title - Review vs. Journal 

message: This piece fails to discus any review outside of the US. It should either be re-titled US Law Reviews or re-written to include references to the many many journals and reviews outside of the US. That, or it should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.250.54 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Law Only: Title is Misleading 

message: Isn't the distinction between Law Review and Law Journal (at least in the US) based on the fact that a Journal is edited by credentialed professionals and its articles are subject to peer-referee by established experts in the field, whereas a Review is edited by students and its articles are not subject to peer-referee? Naaman Brown (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Review v. Law Journal 

message: Below there my exchange with Crusio the editor of this section:
Dear Crusio I have tried to edit the wikipedia article regarding law reviews and you keep unediting it. My question is why is in non notable? it is from a University in Italy, published with the University Press (ISBN Code and ISSN codes) and among the authors there are several Judges and distinguished jurists  
*(Crusio)- The journal does not even exist yet, its website states that "issue 0 will soon be published". Have a look at WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. New journals are almost never "notable" (in the Wikipedia sense, this has no bearing on quality or anything like that, only whether the subject of an article has been "noted" in independent reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *There's a lot to clean up in the "law review" article and the Aberdeen journal may well be one part of it. I never got around to cleaning it up, just prevent it from deteriorating even further. That other stuff exists is not an argument to add more stuff like that, we call that argument WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Unfortunately, none of the sources you list establish notability, if at all, they are just in-passing mentions of the "Rivista". --Crusio (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Journal to Wikipedia 

message: It strikes me as more than a little misleading to describe the Albany Law Review (first published in 1936) as the successor to the Albany Law School Journal (published for one year from 1875 to 1876).  Likewise, I doubt anyone would consider the Columbia Law Review (first published in 1901) to have succeeded the Columbia Jurist (published for two years, from 1885 to 1887)--although that's a slightly closer question.  It seems fairer to say that while the Albany Law School Journal was simply a historical isolate disconnected from the larger trend, the Jurist helped spark the Harvard Law Review--which in turn spawned a boom in student-edited academic law journals.  That boom eventually led to the founding of the Columbia Law Review and, eventually, the Albany Law Review.  The current description obscures that historical trend, and moreover implies that the Albany Law School Journal (and worse yet, the Albany Law Review) occupy anything more than a footnote in the history of the law review.  (On that last point, I would note that neither the Albany Law School wiki page nor the Albany Law Review wiki page support the existence of any successorship relationship between the Law School Journal and the Law Review). I found this 1996 article from the U Akron Law Review to offer some clarity on the historical arc.  I realize that such kibitzing as I've offered isn't particular in the spirit of Wikipedia--but I'd appreciate it if the active editors on this page could correct this error.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37EF:1D90:78B0:6CED:628C:159F (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection between Albany/Columbia predecessor "journals" and modern law reviews 

message: As a member of the Stanford Law Review, I clarified what is expected of student law review members with a minor edit to that section (clarifying that while some journals expect student members to write notes, others draw from broader submission pools, as our law review does). Wishing you all well. Kegiordano (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight edit to duties of student members (from a student member) 

message: This section about Editorial staff in Australia appears to be copied from page 12 of the below book. An excerpt of the book containing the portion that was copied is available at SSRN 3842202. However, the references section is not available online. 
I'm honestly not sure what to do; is it okay to blank the section?
 ―sitting in a fridge <3 coolmato 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy/paste in Editorial staff: Australia section 

message: Ten d9 a jwa8 119.93.7.0 (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I4rwi wi