Jump to content

Talk:United States v. Washington/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Checklist

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

I'll review this one over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • I tweaked the wording of one sentence. Feel free to revert if I've changed the meaning somehow. Everything else in the lede looks fine.
Treaties
  • In the last sentence, you could cut "This was due to the fact that" without changing the meaning of the sentence.
Post-treaty history
  • "Initially, the treaty rights of the tribes were honored...." The passive voice makes this confusing. Might be better as "Initially, the [state/federal] government honored the tribes' treaty rights..."
  • "By the time thirty years had passed, whites had established over forty salmon canneries by 1883." Might be better as "Within thirty years, whites had established more than forty salmon canneries." Or "By 1883, whites had established more than forty salmon canneries."
  • "In 1889, when Washington transitioned from being a territory to a state..." Better to day something like "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state..." Later in that sentence, "the legislature began to pass" should have after it "what [some scholar] described as"
United States v. Winans
  • "arose" might be better than "came up".
Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States
  • It's not clear why you mention Sam Williams here. Was he also involved in the case?
Direct appeals
  • Were there any notable points in the appeals court's decision? Any memorable lines?
Court supervision
  • "As of 2013" -- is there any reading to think this has changed? If not, better just to leave off the "as of" language.
Landmark case
  • One-sentence sections always look incomplete to me. Do you think you could combine this with "Public response"?
  • "The Boldt decision is considered to be..." could be better as "Legal scholars [or whoever] consider the Boalt decision to be..."

That's all I have. Sorry this took so long! Looking forward to your responses. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reponses

Treaties
  • In the last sentence, you could cut "This was due to the fact that" without changing the meaning of the sentence.
 Done
Post-treaty history
  • "Initially, the treaty rights of the tribes were honored...." The passive voice makes this confusing. Might be better as "Initially, the [state/federal] government honored the tribes' treaty rights..."
 Done
  • "By the time thirty years had passed, whites had established over forty salmon canneries by 1883." Might be better as "Within thirty years, whites had established more than forty salmon canneries." Or "By 1883, whites had established more than forty salmon canneries."
 Done
  • "In 1889, when Washington transitioned from being a territory to a state..." Better to day something like "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state..." Later in that sentence, "the legislature began to pass" should have after it "what [some scholar] described as"
 Done
United States v. Winans
  • "arose" might be better than "came up".
 Done
Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States
  • It's not clear why you mention Sam Williams here. Was he also involved in the case?
 Done, added clarification to the following sentence.
Direct appeals
  • Were there any notable points in the appeals court's decision? Any memorable lines?
 Not done Not really, the appellate courts pretty much left Boldt's decision stand intact.
Court supervision
  • "As of 2013" -- is there any reading to think this has changed? If not, better just to leave off the "as of" language.
 Done
Landmark case
  • One-sentence sections always look incomplete to me. Do you think you could combine this with "Public response"?
 Done, combined it with the previous section instead, it fits better there.
  • "The Boldt decision is considered to be..." could be better as "Legal scholars [or whoever] consider the Boalt decision to be..."
 Done
Let me know if I need to do anything else. I really appreciate your taking the time to review this. GregJackP Boomer! 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've gotten everything. I'm happy to pass this one. Nice work, it was an enjoyable read! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_v._Washington/GA1&oldid=670998428"