Talk:Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

Comments from an almost-GA reviewer
I almost took this on as reviewer for a good article. It looks like an interesting and encyclopedic topic and article. What I saw immediately is immense reliance on primary sources. This looks like it would be too big of a job to fix in the middle of a GA review and so I avoided the situation of probably being forced to fail an article by not taking it on for review. Also, while there is no policy requirement for on-line references, the fact that nearly all of the references are off line (and with very abbreviated descriptions which I think that only legal experts could understand) would make it a near-impossible task to discern to what extent the material is supported by sources. If you'd like me to take it on despite the above (in which case it might require much work to pass) please drop me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to do so. I hope that my comments are useful. Looks like much good work has been done on this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had deleted the above comment because I decided that it had a risk of influencing potential reviewers, and I did not want to do so. Subsequiently someone de-nominated it because the main author and nominator is retired. After that I restored my comment for future reference. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)