Talk:County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State/GA1

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

Reviewer: Michaelzeng7 (talk · contribs) 17:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to review another article! Please wait as I read the entire article to justify its good article nomination.

Review
-Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources ✅
 * The "Background" section's first 2 paragraphs are unsourced and require citations.
 * Ref 39 contains a redlink that should be removed.
 * Pretty much all of the sources relate directly to the article topic. Consider adding third-party reliable sources.
 * Most of the article relies on one source: 470 US But this shouldn't be a problem when the one above is addressed.
 * Well-written✅
 * The section Subsequent developments contains templates that link to articles that do not exist. These should be removed or fixed.
 * Broad in coverage ✅
 * Neutral ✅
 * I guess you can't really read this article without leaning to one side, but thats probably because the court ruled in its favor and I think it just depends on how you read it. So this shouldn't hold back GA status.
 * Stable ✅
 * Images ✅ - There isn't much images to really correspond with this, so it passes in terms of quantity.
 * Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. ✅
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ✅

Comments
OK, I think thats it. I find this topic interesting. It's sourced amply, but most of them refer to primary sources. Any third party sources? It also seems to rely on 470 US all the time. Try and fix this, but I can understand it may be hard to fix, fix everything else and at least make attempts to third-party sources and that issue shouldn't be something that would hold back Good Article status. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that redlinks need to be removed. The redlinks are to notable topics, not the sort that WP:RED recommends removing. There is no requirement that good, or even featured, articles remove red links for aesthetic reasons. As for "470 US" that is the cite to the court's opinion itself. I do not agree that it is "primary source" within the sense that term is used in Wikipedia's policies (that would apply to party briefs and trial transcripts). Nor would it be an improvement to cite a quote or paraphrase of the court's opinion to some newspaper article or student's law review note. However, I will look to see if there is any additional analysis or commentary on the case that should be added before completely demurring on your third comment. Savidan 03:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good point to WP:RED. I'll remove them from the list. Thanks for responding! -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, yeah, I think this is good enough after some consideration. Good Article it shall be. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)