Talk:Young v. Facebook, Inc.

Young v. Facebook, Inc. was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 1, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Young v. Facebook, Inc. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 March 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in Americans with Disabilities Act, despite its having "posts" and "walls"? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Young v. Facebook, Inc..

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

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. United States Start‑class 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 project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Young v. Facebook, Inc./GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 16:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do this review.--
  WP:FOUR) 16:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• After reading the
  WP:FOUR) 06:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • After considering this article, I think it fails for lack of breadth. I would expect that each action has a section at least as substantive as the facts section. Then the two court rulings should have large sections. This article is terribly incomplete.--
    WP:FOUR) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]