Talk:United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster

United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster 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.
Review: May 7, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the United States once sued a golden cock but cried fowl when the cock won?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster.

Wikipedia

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.

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.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Usage of "cock" repeatedly in the article.

Is the usage of "cock" in the article extremely repetitively supposed to be a joke or something? Wikitrumpets (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the usage of "cock" in the article is extremely repetitive or supposed to be a joke or "something" then the problem is not in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.250.30.76 (talk) 04:40, April 1, 2021 (UTC)

Depends, what word does the sources generally put in their mouths? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rooster vs. cock It could be argued per WP:ENGVAR that rooster is preferable. Reminds me of an episode of Elementary where Watson insisted on calling Holmes' cocks roosters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for continuing to use cock instead of rooster, per MOS:RETAIN. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus will be what it will be. We'll keep enjoying "...saying that the cock was "exquisite"." for now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, the legal report says "rooster" instead of "cock". Rooster is also much more commonly used in the modern day. We wouldn't go calling a plague a pestilence. Wikitrumpets (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you said that I had to google both words, which of course doesn't support your hypothesis. Making google compare cock-birds and rooster-birds is less easily done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google “cock” and it’ll probably be a rooster. Not like I checked or anything. Thetreehuggingjersey (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As should be obvious, this article should use the terminology that reliable sources use. And reliable sources call the statue a rooster. I have edited the article accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Photo Clarification

Specifically, the photo requested is a photo of John Ascuaga's Nugget golden cock, or "rooster", an example of which can be seen here. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image I added good enough? We won't be able to have more than one image, due to the object itself (and hence any photo of it) being a protected creative work. DMacks (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too high-res for free-use I think but looks fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work @DMacks:, it's nice that this article now has a picture of Dick's cock. _(behave!) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's Richard's rooster you naughty Brit (?) I may write a stiff letter. A very stiff letter. On cardboard..! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo looks great, thanks! Like Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I am also concerned about the high-res. Tyrone Madera (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already tagged it for the bot that does resolution-reductions to reduce it for us. No prejudice against someone doing it manually rather than waiting. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, got it. Thanks! :-) Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 02:36, 24 April 2023 (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, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Lead

There are several references in the lead. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the lead repeats information in the body and so avoiding redundant citations is preferred. I personally prefer a lead without citations however it is not prohibited and so this is an optional issue to address given it is not a barrier to passing GA criteria.
[1] Source check okay.
[2] Source check okay
Lead is an appropriate length. Short and and succinct, yet sufficient for the length of the article.
Spelling and grammar are good. Well written.

Background

I changed under permission of the Mint to with permission of the mint
[8] Source check okay. Several short sentences prior to this citation are without citation but the facts are supported by this reference. Given they are one after the other, it is fine to just have the end of the paragraph cited. The wording is also very well paraphrased to contain facts from the source but summarised into authors own words.
[7] is not the most reliable of sources, however because the fact is not controversial or likely to be challenged this is fine.
Background is succinct yet sufficient.

Case

[9] Source check okay and supports preceding sentences.
Claim that Laxalt compared the case to modern-day David/Goliath battle is not referenced but previous and subsequent reference verifies statement. Totally original on behalf of the lawyer ;)
[1] Again, source integrity okay. This is a primary reference, however I think for these uses it's fine.

Aftermath

References both check out.

References

A number of sources had no author name. I have added where located.

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.