Jump to content

Talk:Burton v. United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBurton v. United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 14, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 19, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1904, Joseph R. Burton (R-KS) became the first United States Senator to be convicted of a crime?


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Burton v. United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 15:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Wikilink for John F. Dillon goes to dab page.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. On hold to allow fix to dab link
My best guess is John Francis Dillon (commissioner), but I cannot find any confirmation. I don't want to build a Frankenstein, so I've left it pointing to the dab page for now. Savidan 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I would have thought John Forrest Dillon, but a quick check didn't show anything either. GregJackP Boomer! 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have confirmed that it was John Forrest Dillon. The NYT describes him as a former judge. Savidan 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name Confusion?

[edit]

"After the jury returned deadlocked 11-1, Judge Adams delivered an Allen charge.[28] Soon afterwards, the jury returned a verdict that failed to address the third count in the indictment, so the Judge Allen ordered the jury to return to deliberations without reading the verdict.[19]"

Shouldn't the second instance of "Allen" be "Adams"? NitPicker769 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]