Talk:Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees

Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees 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 May 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 18, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept March 14, 2022 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 16, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in the 1984 Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey gaming law requiring union leaders to be of good moral character? Current status: Delisted good article

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

U.S. Supreme Court cases Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Law Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for July 2. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This was a very high-quality article, all things considered. It was extremely informative, and I'm quite impressed. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lede fails WP:LEAD, does not adequately summarize entire contents of article. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed GA in 2007. Our quality standards have since improved greatly, and this no longer meets them. There are claims that lack citations and the lead fails MOS:LEAD in its length and coverage. The prose arguably fails GA#1 too, due to its jumpy layout. Anarchyte (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow this is an old pass. From the days when any editor could just add the status without a review. It's not terrible considering. Have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases and @Ruslik0:. Aircorn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not GA Intro is bad and sourcing isn't great. There's not photos. The background section is long and poorly formatted. Definitely doesn't give GA vibes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]