Jump to content

Talk:Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCircuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams 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
March 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 22, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams that the phrase "contracts of employment" in the Federal Arbitration Act actually does not refer to employment contracts?

Who appealed to the Supreme Court?

[edit]

The text says "Adams appealed to the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case." My reading of the current text is that Adams won in the appeals court, so why would he appeal to the Supreme Court? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. You're correct, Circuit City appealed. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Lord Roem (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • Needs rewriting and expanding to become a summary rather than an introduction per WP:LEAD
Opinion of the court
  • Numbers 1-9 should be spelt out as words per WP:ORDINAL
  • Quotations should be marked by quote marks ("), not apostrophes per MOS:NUM#Quotation marks
  • Punctuation at the end of quotes should be outside the quote marks per MOS:LQ

Nothing major just MoS compliance. I'll put it on hold to give you chance to sort it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good now. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]