Talk:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 04:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	WP:MOSLAW indicates that the summary should be in "fairly plain language, for a lay audience" which may be followed by a more detailed description. Based on this, the lede should be simplified, with the more detailed information in the following sections.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	While not required, it would be helpful if refs could be linked to a web source. Legal citations, especially to the primary case law, should completely identify the reference, i.e., New York v. Doe, 123 US 456 (1888), hyperlinking to the case on Justica or Findlaw, etc. Remember also that while WP:MOSLAW gives priority to primary sources over secondary sources for factual disputes, the use of secondary sources provide better reference material to the layperson.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images used have their copyright status documented, all are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Although explained in text, two photographs identify the individual as "Chief Justice" - it should probably identify Andrews as a state court chief justice and Fuller as the chief justice of SCOTUS.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good job.

I am placing the article on hold for corrections until 5/26/2012. GregJackP Boomer! 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the image captions for Andrews and Fuller. I also cleaned up and chipped down the lead to a reasonable length. Oakley77 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I changed the GAR to reflect your changes, the only thing I see now that is pending is the references, both cleaning up the court cites and (if possible) adding more secondary sources. GregJackP Boomer! 23:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I only partially agree with the categorization of case citations as "primary" rather than "secondary," I do agree that some things must be cited to secondary sources and that notable bits of analysis from secondary sources should be included in articles about cases. Here, there is only one law review article written primarily about the case and its major insights are already included. If you can suggest additional sources, I will include them as well. As for external links to the text of case opinions, I oppose these (at least in footnotes). There is no policy banning the use of offline sources nor a policy requiring the use of external links in footnotes. Here, the New York state courts opinions would not be available online, but even the sites that make the federal opinions available have problems. I am not in a position to verify their accuracy (and neither is Wikipedia), they are chock full of ads, and their urls may change without warning. (Notice, for example, all the annoying "padlock" graphics that now appear next to Justia links which have been made ubiquitous by law-related templates). While I do not plan to go around removing such externals links added by other authors to articles to which they primarily contributed, I certainly do not think they should be made mandatory. Savidan 04:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I totally agree with you on the case citation "primary"/"secondary" categorization, however at this time, that is the way the majority of the community classifies them. You are also correct that online links are not required (as I noted above) - which is why I only suggested that as being helpful. I probably should have been more clear that linking the citation would not affect my review. In any event, in my opinion, this is a good article - congratulations. GregJackP Boomer! 11:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]