Talk:Aboriginal title/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 14:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
This article appears to be well referenced and comprehensive, so it might GA-status this time round. However, there is one unreferenced section and at least one other section was confusing and seemed to be devoid of "time"

I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting at the English colonial legacy section and finishing with the WP:Lead.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * English colonial legacy -
 * A very confused section that needs to be improved.
 * The whole of the article I suspect is based on laws of the land of former colonies of Great Britain, this is somewhat reinforced by looking at the countries listed in the History by jurisdiction section, but nowhere is this stated explicitly.
 * Great Britain was not the only state to have colonies, both France and Spain had them. It might be worth considering whether there are any Aboriginal titles from these jurisdictions, or specifically excluding them from the scope of the article.
 * The first paragraph is devoid of time and place. The "Crown", I suspect is referring to the United Kingdom (as it is currently abbreviated), but nowhere is this made clear, neither is the jurisdiction (Laws of England & Wales, possibly).
 * The first paragraph has no time frame: the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was established in 1833, the Act of State link leads to Act of state doctrine but the United Kingdom section is blank; and Doctrine of Continuity and the Recognition Doctrine are redlinks, so all three Acts/Doctrines are also undated. However, the second paragraph states off with: "In the same year in which the Doctrine of Continuity emerged,[2][3] Edward Coke delivered a famous dictum in Calvin’s Case (1608) ....", and ref 2 also gives 1608, now according to wikipedia Edward Coke lived from February 1552 – 3 September 1634, so I assume that the first paragraph pre-dates, or is contemporary with these dates (but see below).
 * So possibly "The Crown" mentioned in the first paragraph is referring to laws of Kingdom of England (the historical state (927–1707)), but this pre-dates the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
 * The third paragraph uses "Privy Council" without any wikilink or clarification. I assume from the context that this is Privy Council of the United Kingdom, but this ambiguity needs to be removed.
 * The third paragraph also refers to common law cases "Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut" (America), Southern Rhodesia and Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (Secretary) presumably heard in the UK because at one time (or perhaps at the time of the trials) these lands were the property of the UK. Possibly the section title "English colonial legacy" hints at this, but it needs to explicitly explained in the text.


 * Doctrinal overview -
 * This is mostly explanation and is unreferenced. (This is a comment, not an "action".)
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - Interestingly it states in the 'Content subsection: "It is common ground among the relevant jurisdictions that aboriginal title is inalienable, except to the federal government ("the Crown"), although Malaysia ...." and The Crown is wikilinked and is obviously an article on The Crown of the United Kingdom, although the context in which it is used is federal government.
 * Claims are made about Malaysia and Australia, a reference or references should be provided.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - The same, The Crown, wikilink is used in the Extinguishment subsection, but the context is "country".

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * History by jurisdiction -
 * Australia -
 * Looks OK.


 * Belize -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - In the first paragraph, I assume that in 1880 references to the Privy Council and the Crown refer to the UK institutions of that name. This aught to be made clear.
 * Otherwise, OK.


 * Botswana
 * Looks OK.


 * Canada -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - Its fairly obvious (perhaps obvious) in the first paragraph, that 1888 references to the Privy Council and the Queen refer to the UK "institutions" of that name. This aught to be made clear.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - In the second paragraph, the statement "The Nisga'a did not prevail because the seventh justice, Pigeon J, found that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make a declaration in favour of the Nisga'a in the absence of a fiat of the Lieutenant-Governor of B.C. permitting suit against the provincial government." aught to have a citation.


 * Malaysia -
 * Looks OK.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, South Africa & Tanzania -
 * These four subsections look OK.


 * United States -
 * Looks OK.


 * Jurisdictions rejecting the doctrine -
 * Looks OK.


 * WP:Lead -
 * Quite a reasonable summary based on the article as it currently exists. However, I've raised a number of questions in the English colonial legacy and depending on what happens there the lead may need to be updated. The article does not make it clear, but I suspect that it is limited to considering former former colonies of Great Britain. Spain and France, for instance also had colonies.

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold". Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I have addressed your comments other than those for the first two sections. I will need a bit of time to think about the issues you raise in those sections. Savidan 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. OK. I'm happy so far with your improvements. Pyrotec (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Yes, apart from the English colonial legacy which needs more work, and this might impact on the Lead.
 * B. Focused:
 * Yes, apart from the English colonial legacy which needs more work, and this might impact on the Lead.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As no progress has been made since 16th June 2012, I'm closing this review.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As no progress has been made since 16th June 2012, I'm closing this review.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As no progress has been made since 16th June 2012, I'm closing this review.

I believe that this article could make GA-status once the problems with the English colonial legacy section have been resolved (and this may impact on the lead). I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)