Talk:United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 21, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
June 18, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 1, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the United States once fought 32 tons of shark fins, and the fins won?

Current status: Good article

Transport: Maritime Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fisheries and Fishing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing 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.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sharks Low‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other oddly named cases

Should there be an "Unusually-named court cases" category on the wiki? I don't know if any others have articles, but I have heard of such cases as United States vs. Pipe on Head. Hellbus (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not; it's somewhat subjective as to what constitutes an "unusual name". Consider Stoner v. California ... it's unintentionally funny, enough that I got it to DYK last year on April 20.

Perhaps we should have a category for in rem cases, though, as that's verifiable. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in rem cases generally have odd names, which can be unintentionally funny. I agree with this category suggestion. Hellbus (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It exists as Category:United States civil forfeiture case law. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we can have a category for in rem cases, since not every one of them is a civil forfeiture case (Quantity of Books v. Kansas and United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, for instance (OK, I wrote them both) are obscenity cases). Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems like standard fare for WP:UA Maltice (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a category called Category:United States in rem cases now. Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the article's already in it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Conservation Act section

I don't see a reason for us to have this much information about the Act in this article, more than the main article on the Act does. I propose that we move the text from this section over to the Shark Conservation Act article and then cut the prose in this article down. Any objections? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I sort of wrote that much upon seeing that the article on the law was as thin as it was. Most of the procedural detail should go over there, with just the material on how it responded to the loophole created by the decision staying here (i.e., the specific changes, and the implicit and explicit responses to the court). Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ciaran Sinclair (talk · contribs) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this! Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 22:39, 18 June 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):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: