Draft talk:Chaput v. Romain

This page 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

Canada

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related

Help, or advice

Hello @White whirlwind, @CASalt, and @Cdlangan. I have pinged you because I either saw your name on Wikiproject Law or Roe v. Wade. I have started this draft and would appreciate any help, seeing as you are law interested people. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Canadian cases are outside my expertise. White Whirlwind 17:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, Thank you for the response. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I've been in semi-retirement from Wikipedia and haven't logged on in a couple of weeks. My advice would be to forgo the parties section and introduce the parties in the background section. It's also probably too much detail to list the judges presiding over the case. The lead section is good (with the minor suggestion of dropping "was a case appealed to"), and it's also nice that you've found secondary sources discussing the case. It's also good that the background section discusses the history of the case in the lower courts. Beyond that, you should add a "Holding" or "Decision" section that states how the Supreme Court ruled, and discusses the legal basis for the Supreme Court's ruling, though it does not need to be extensively detailed. CASalt (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]