Talk:Fant v. The City of Ferguson

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.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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.

Untitled[edit]

You've done a great job outlining the sections of the article that you want to write. I think that once there's more detail in the sections it will be a great page. Try adding more information regarding the defendants claims as well as the plaintiff's claims. --Ttheiss4 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like this too. I would like to know more about the importance of the case. What impact has the case had on other laws or policies. What have scholars or law review authors said about the case? Cassell04 (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bricci13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student Contribution[edit]

I really like the direction you're going with this one. It does a good job of throwing out a bunch of the legal jargon and then following it up with explanation for those who may not know what those terms mean. One thing I would add in the plaintiff section is more in-depth background on the situational aspects of conditions the plaintiff faced while incarcerated, if that information is around anywhere. Additionally, more information on the plaintiffs themselves would be nice. I understand you have the whole background section you're going to expand on so this is just nit-picky. Perhaps you could mention and explain the due process clause in the constitution to help fill out some of the plaintiff claims section. I like the structure you have in place, its sweet and to the point. Anyone reading would have no problem finding the information effectively. The flow is logical. Overall, I'm sure this will turn out to be a solid entry with expanded explanations of the sections you have.

Zdp3 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)zdp3[reply]

Great start to an important case. One thing that I see is that you have not included any background information. It's nice that you are still gathering information before publish it. I think a thing that would be beneficial as well would be to include what the court's decision on the case has been. Talk about what has happened since the case has been decided, if it has indeed been decided. Finally. you probably already know this, but i would agree on putting the impact of the case in here somewhere. Why is this case important? Other than that, this is a great beginning to a page I am excited to read.Skrainov (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]