Talk:Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RadioKAOS (talk · contribs) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is some convention of Supreme Court cases having separate articles which I am ignoring, I question whether this deserves to be a separate article, much less a good article, on account of its length. This article, Kensington mine and Coeur d'Alene Mines are all rather short articles which share much of the same content and many of the same references. The Kensington mine article was given only one rating in article feedback, 5 stars on completeness. This ignores the article itself, which states In 1928 the mine halted operations, yet gives no information whatsoever about its early history other than that fact. Consider researching the early history of the mine and consolidating content into one or perhaps two articles. Amazingly enough, I half expected this at first to be some sort of POV fork for the Lynn Canal Highway article, which suffers from major NPOV problems, but I don't see evidence of that.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As this is my first GAN, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with the procedure, but I will respond to the initial reviewers comments here (feel free to move them as required).

1. I am unaware of any SCOTUS requirement for having a seperate article, but the case does meet the general notability guidelines, so there shouldn't be an issue with a stand alone article. With regards to the actual mine article, currently it could stand to be redirected to the case, as I don't think there is enough out there for an article outside of what is shown, although I haven't looked into expansion lately. I also don't see how the quality of the Kensington Mine article relates to the quality of this article.
2. I am unaware of any length requirement for a good article.
3. Coeur d'Alene Mines is a fairly sizeable mining company with six operating mines worldwide. The company article could use expansion, but that shouldn't stand in the way of this article being nominated. Even if the company article were expanded, inclusion of the content of this article in the company article would dominate the expanded article, in which case it would be better suited split anyway.
4. Inclusion of the early history of the mine would be more suited to an article about the mine than about the court case, I think that the mine operated 80 years ago is sufficient background information for the early history (for inclusion in an article about the SCOTUS case). Others may disagree, but I am unsure of what should be included, maybe life of mine production figures prior to closure, but I don't know where one would find that. Regardless I will have a look. Interestingly, all the sources in the article show the mine as operating until 1928, where the Alaska DNR states that the mine operated until 1938, while an adjacent project operated until 1928. Not sure where to go with that information.
5. Prior to reading this I had never heard of the Lynn Canal Highway.

--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• The Coeur d'Alene Mines article should be expanded well beyond the scope of this article, and the content here, especially if this article is expanded, doesn't belong in the Kensington mine article.
• Don't see the relevance of the year of cessation of mining in this article unless it was a factor in the case.
• This article merits expansion. In particular, it would be worthwhile commenting on whether any other cases follow this precedent, whether any other other USACE decisions based on these criteria have been challenged, whether there have been any efforts to overturn the regulatory change that led to this being a USACE decision, etc. In addition, it would be useful to describe the regulatory change in more detail, and to elucidate Bader Ginsburg's dissent further (in particular, the description makes it seems as though she agrees with the conclusion of the court but just finds it bad policy). ^Bongo_matic 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: non found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   OK, there are some places where the prose falls below standard:

   In 2005 Coeur was granted their permit to dispose of their tailings into Lower Slate Lake by the USACE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the basis of a definition of "fill material" which had been revised in 2002 under the administration of George W. Bush. The sentence is iover complex and the repeated "their"s, which I have bolded, are clumsy.

   Replaced with In 2005 Coeur was granted a permit to dispose of tailings into Lower Slate Lake by the USACE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The decision was based on the definition of "fill material" which had been revised in 2002 under the administration of George W. Bush. - Changed to two sentances (reads better now I think), and the their concerns have been addressed.

   The permit allowed for dumping 4.5 million tons of a combination of waste rock and tailings of ten years, which would result in the floor elevation of Lower Slate Lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m). Do you mean "for ten years" rather than "of ten years"?

   Over a 10 year period. Replaced with The permit allowed Coeur to dump 4.5 million tons of a combination of waste rock and tailings into the Lower Slate Lake over a period of ten years, resulting in the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m).

   Following the Army Corps' permitting of the tailings disposal, Do you mean "Following the Army Corps' grating of permission for tailings disposal". Needs rewording, not really grammatical as it stands.

   It isn't "permitting" as in "allowing", it is "issuing a permit". Replaced with After the Army Corps issued the permit to dispose of the tailings. (strikethrough, to many the in close proximity.)

   After the Army Corps issued the permit allowing Coeur to dispose of tailings into Lower Slate Lake

   agreeing that the USACE is indeed the appropriate body for the permitting of mine waste discharge into Lower Slate Lake. Again "permitting of" isn't right.

   Same as above, but changed to agreeing that the USACE is indeed the appropriate body to issue a permit to discharge mine waste into Lower Slate Lake

   Please go through again and clean up the prose.

   Done (I think).

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD.

   Expanded the lead to include a brief summary of the description.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources look good, adequate referencing, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The subsequent developments section should have something about the bill introduced to reverse the Bush administration's loosening of protection. There may be updates, the news report is over two years old.

   I added mention of the the Clean Water Protection Act, which I was unaware of. I had looked for subsiquent developments before I nominated it, and found nothing. If the Clean Water Protection Acto passes, there will likely be an impact, but not yet.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. An interesting article, how bizarre that the Army has responsibility for licensing mine waste disposal. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

   OK this passes muster now, Happy to list. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   I've started working on it, was offline for a few days.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I (think I) completed all the reccomendations. I have been through the prose several times, although I am also not the best writer...but I think it is more readable now. The bill for the Clean Water Protection Act had been raised before the decision and was mostly directed at mountain-top removal mining (from what I have found) but would certainly have an impact on this decision should it pass.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reasoning

This deserves a discussion of the Court's reasoning in this case and it's impact with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., United States v. Mead Corp., and Auer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.6.73 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And what impact would that be? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)