Talk:Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Scott5114 (talk · contribs) 06:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is generally well written and understandable by a reader with only a basic grasp of law. Would like to see more varied sentence subjects (i.e. rather than using the state and the tribe, consider switching it up with Oklahoma and the Sac & Fox and other synonyms). Lead needs to be expanded—a good rule of thumb I have heard tossed around is to include a short paragraph summarizing each section of the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I have never used the Bluebook citation style, so this is a bit of a naive question–is the small caps treatment part of the style guidelines? Citations used appear to be high quality and the article does not appear to contain any original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
All major points are addressed. If sources can be found, I'd recommend expanding the "subsequent development" section to explore any effects that Okla. Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation had on the world outside the courtroom, such as changes Oklahoma (or other states) made in its tax policy to comply with the court decision.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Article makes no judgements of its own on one side or another. However, it might be a good idea to try to dig up why Oklahoma was pursuing this case (other than the obvious reason of Oklahoma smelling money and not being well known for being a particularly bright state government—as an Oklahoman, and someone who writes articles about the works of Oklahoma's government, I can attest to that :P ). Including the Tenth Circuit quote about Oklahoma losing a similar case leaves the impression that Oklahoma was tilting at windmills, (which it was) but doesn't give an explanation to balance that from Oklahoma's point of view for why it still continued to press forward. (I realize you may be unable to find a source for this.)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article was mostly written by nominator in userspace, no contentious editing apparent in mainspace.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
There is only one non-template image in the article, which checks out. You may want to further illustrate the article by including images related to the parties to the case. For example, some ideas are either the Oklahoma State Capitol building or (if you can find one) the Tax Commission building to represent the Oklahoma government.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am going to go ahead and place this article on hold. It is almost there; mostly what I am looking for is the expansion of the lead and a few more images if you can find appropriate ones. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I'll address your concerns in the order you presented them.

Prose, I'll look at state, tribe, etc., with a view of changing some of the verbiage.

Done

Lead, I'll expand it.

Done

Bluebook, small caps is used for books (and authors of books) and journals titles. Italics are used for case names, journal article titles, chapter titles in books, etc. I did notice that some of the refs were formatted incorrectly and fixed those. Formatting is very simple for the most part. Vol# Title (of book, article, etc) Page#, pincite, (year). Author goes in front, editor with publication date.

Done

Images, I don't believe that these are required for GA status, but I'll look for some appropriate ones.

Done, added images of tribal and Okla. seals.

I'll mark each area done when I complete it, let me know if there are any other concerns. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the corrections I have made made will take care of the issues you've brought up--please let me know if I need to do something else, or if I have missed one of your concerns. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me. Congratulations, and good work! Article passed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]