Talk:Somerset v Stewart

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law High‑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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. England High‑importance England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Somerset v Stewart was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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 24, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

GAN

The referencing in this article is simply not up to GA standards. None of the borader claims nor the decision itself is referenced. If it is truly as critical as claimed there sould be several books on the subject that could be mentioned in a references or further reading section. On a broader note more information or links pertaining to the history of abolistion in England would be good. Also the Dred Scott comparision could be broken off into a seperate section perhaps with mention of other precedents in Brazil or else where. Eluchil404 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

All of these points are now addressed. 185.251.11.193 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)