Talk:Idaho v. United States

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Idaho v. United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 22:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I will review this article, comments to follow. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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.	See comments below
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.	I know there's drahmahz about Bluebook versus standard MOS at FAC, but for GA, this is not an issue, citation style is correct and consistent
	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).
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	If you can find an image of Lake Coeur d' Alene, it would be cool to add one.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi GregJackP, Here are some of my initial assessments of the article. I'll let you look these comments over and work on them as you wish, I will probably be a few days before I complete the review. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Added photo of lake, per 6.b. comment. GregJackP Boomer! 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

1. Lead is way too short for GA, while I don't need a full-blown three to four paragraph lead, one sentence is definitely too little. That said, I'd do all other fixes to the article and redo the lead at the end to save yourself multiple rewrites. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
2. It would be very cool if you could, somewhere,

History

1. While "Indian tribe" is official US Gov't lingo, saying "tribe" twice in the first sentence and then again in the second is awkward, also "the tribe" is not a monolithic entity, but rather a collection of people - so maybe reword to say something like "The Coeur d'Alene people once inhabited 3,500,000 acres (1,400,000 ha) in northern Idaho and Washington,[2][3] (And Montana, actually, note article on the tribe) but today, the only land controlled by the tribal nation is the Coeur d'Alene Reservation in Benewah and Kootenai counties, Idaho.[4]" You don't have to use my wording, but you see how I am distinguishing land and people, though the two are, of course, closely intertwined. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

   And nicely done as well! Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Second and third paragraphs jump around and need another copyedit. I'd put right up front that Johnson did the executive order but Congress never acted on it, then go on about how the tribe didn't accept it anyway? Keep the chronology clearer. (Interesting that the Coeur d'Alene article says nothing about this period, maybe finish here and add a bit to that article too... hmmm) Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
3. From a VERY cursory review of the decision, it appears that gap between creation of the reservation and Idaho's statehood becomes significant in this case, so perhaps give us a bit of foreshadowing that this is not just a dry fact, but it's something that's going to matter.
4. The section fails to draw out the significance of the info on the state park and mining, maybe add a wee bit to hint at why this will matter in the SCOTUS case. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Addressing:

1. Second and third paragraphs jump around and need another copyedit. I'd put right up front that Johnson did the executive order but Congress never acted on it, then go on about how the tribe didn't accept it anyway? Keep the chronology clearer. (Interesting that the Coeur d'Alene article says nothing about this period, maybe finish here and add a bit to that article too... hmmm)
2. From a VERY cursory review of the decision, it appears that gap between creation of the reservation and Idaho's statehood becomes significant in this case, so perhaps give us a bit of foreshadowing that this is not just a dry fact, but it's something that's going to matter.
3. The section fails to draw out the significance of the info on the state park and mining, maybe add a wee bit to hint at why this will matter in the SCOTUS case.

Prior court action

1. This section is real light and jumpy, we need an intro about why the tribe got into a pissing match with the state in the first place (was aforesaid mining and Superfund part of the reason, for example?) Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
2. I'd explain more about Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho - you have the wikilink, but at least mention also that the case was dismissed, and then transition to the next paragraphs about the next steps the tribe took. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
3. The next section is also fuzzy as to which court did what and when. Overall, I'd say that you need to roughly double the length of this section by adding a bit more background, and some copyediting for smooth prose transition from one event to the next. As I read it, I'm wondering why it matters and while you are at it, kill the one-sentence paragraphs. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

1. I'd just call this section "Opinion" or "Decision" and toss "of the court" -JMO, I won't kick if you want to keep it. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    Done, per WP:SCOTUS/SG. GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Photos of Souter and Rehnquist are "sandwiching" the text, which I hear is the worst wiki-crime you can possibly commit ( /snark) Maybe right justify Souter and bump Rehnquist down to the dissent section and left-justify his image... Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

    Done, per WP:SCOTUS/SG. GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

   Nice, I did a little bit of wikignoming on the images, hope you don't mind. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

3. and you should expand the dissent a bit too, it's sketchy... Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
4. I'm going to read the actual decision before I comment further on this section, but while you are doing a copyedit, remember to either expand or merge your one-sentence paragraphs. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
5. But until then, IMHO, consider that the GA should perhaps be longer than the syllabus of the case itself...  ? Just saying ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Consider expanding the "Subsequent developments" subsection into a full section and discuss the impact of the case. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Addressing:

1. and you should expand the dissent a bit too, it's sketchy...
2. I'm going to read the actual decision before I comment further on this section, but while you are doing a copyedit, remember to either expand or merge your one-sentence paragraphs.
3. But until then, IMHO, consider that the GA should perhaps be longer than the syllabus of the case itself...  ? Just saying ;-)
4. Consider expanding the "Subsequent developments" subsection into a full section and discuss the impact of the case.

Comment

It's been three weeks since any work was done on this review, either by reviewer or nominator. Is there going to be any action soon, or should it be closed? There are clearly significant issues that need to be addressed (requests for expansion, copyediting, etc.), so a good deal of work is needed on the article to bring this up to GA level, yet none has been done in the past 24 days. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for GregJack to respond, but perhaps he was waiting for me. GregJack, can you comment on what we have so far? Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

GregJackP hasn't edited since February 28, and his talk page says he's retired. Under the circumstances, Montanabw, I think it's time to close this nomination as unsuccessful. If he should return, he can renominate it then. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the retired note I'm closing this. Wizardman 18:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood. He can return and revisit it later. Montanabw^(talk) 20:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)