Talk:Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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.

Circuit 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
Date	Process	Result
March 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

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]