Talk:United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 30, 2009 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2009 Good article nominee Listed January 13, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

St. Louis Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis (Politics), a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Law Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More info is at this Judgepedia article. The image there may be copyrighted -- I can't find any copyright information anywhere on the site -- but with that information someone should be able to alter a map like File:Map of Missouri highlighting Atchison County.svg to show the outlines of the district. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the image comes from here from the official site. I have no idea if the image is copyrighted or not. (The website seems to have been designed circa 1996, and isn't particularly friendly.) – Quadell ^(talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it. It's not great, but it'll do. If you can find or make a better one, please, replace. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to move towards GA

• Well referenced usually means a minimum of one cite per paragraph: 1st paragraph in mandate has none as does the judges section
• WP:LEAD - most people agree the lead section should have few citations, as the info is supposed to be elsewhere in the article and should be cited there. The exception is that contentiousness type info should be cited in the lead. Also, rarely do you link parts of the bolded title, wikilink those terms later in the lead. Also mentions largest courthouse, I would also add the name. Also, maybe move the case citation from the lead and add it along with what reporters the cases are published in, to an appropriate section (see Oregon Supreme Court#Oregon Reporter
  for content ideas).
• Headers should be concise, a couple in the history section should be trimmed.
• References need to be full citations and need to be uniform. Websites tend to be missing retrieved date. For consistency you can use the templates, which you can add more easily using a gadget available under "my preferences" (if you didn't already know).
• Lastly, in general this is rather legal focused, and kind of technical in that sense. For instance the first sentence:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is a

St. Louis, Missouri, with jurisdiction over the 50 eastern counties of Missouri

. The court is one of 94 district-level courts which make up the first tier of the U.S. federal judicial system. (not the next sentence says "federal matters" which ignores state claims with diversity jurisdiction, but the technical details in general here should be moved elsewhere and not be in the lead)

• But in general "dumb it down" for the average reader. I know you feel it is more legal professionals who will be reading these court articles, which in that case they should already know most of the technical points of the federal court system. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have addressed many of these concerns. Thanks for the input! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really impressive work, though, considering the overhaul of this article in the past few weeks. bd2412 T 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a lot better, but there are still some issues with the footnotes. #35 & 36 I think is the best way to approach case citations, so: 26, 28, 32, and 34 need to match (or if you prefer another format, just make sure they all match). With the "3 Stat. 653" and the like, add a publisher (GPO I think). #19 should have page numbers (plus the date is not in parentheses, but other cites do place them as such). #25 needs a period at the end to match the others. And one uses the Wikipedia standard (all the templates use it) of "Retrieved on" for the date, while the rest use "accessed". #27 needs to have the publication as [[Time (magazine)|''Time'']]. The key MOS part as they need to be consistent, whether you use ALWD as it looks like you have judging by the first name first or whether you use MLA or APA. I'll re-read the article later this week to look for any other issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have standardized the referencing for all cites. The only thing you mentioned that is not yet fixed is the format of notes 20, 21, etc. I'm not sure what to do for these. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a proper citation format for the acts underlying statutes - I'll look for it, but not until this weekend (exams and all that). bd2412 T 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should include the names of the judges on senior status in the article; they do currently hear cases in the EDMo. THF (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. I've fixed that. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930183632/http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/peter_j_spiro/beussink.htm to http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/peter_j_spiro/beussink.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—