Talk:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy/GA1

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 04:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am placing the article on hold for corrections until 5/26/2012. GregJackP  Boomer!   02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed up the image captions for Andrews and Fuller. I also cleaned up and chipped down the lead to a reasonable length. Oakley77 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

I changed the GAR to reflect your changes, the only thing I see now that is pending is the references, both cleaning up the court cites and (if possible) adding more secondary sources. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While I only partially agree with the categorization of case citations as "primary" rather than "secondary," I do agree that some things must be cited to secondary sources and that notable bits of analysis from secondary sources should be included in articles about cases. Here, there is only one law review article written primarily about the case and its major insights are already included. If you can suggest additional sources, I will include them as well. As for external links to the text of case opinions, I oppose these (at least in footnotes). There is no policy banning the use of offline sources nor a policy requiring the use of external links in footnotes. Here, the New York state courts opinions would not be available online, but even the sites that make the federal opinions available have problems. I am not in a position to verify their accuracy (and neither is Wikipedia), they are chock full of ads, and their urls may change without warning. (Notice, for example, all the annoying "padlock" graphics that now appear next to Justia links which have been made ubiquitous by law-related templates). While I do not plan to go around removing such externals links added by other authors to articles to which they primarily contributed, I certainly do not think they should be made mandatory. Savidan 04:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I totally agree with you on the case citation "primary"/"secondary" categorization, however at this time, that is the way the majority of the community classifies them. You are also correct that online links are not required (as I noted above) - which is why I only suggested that as being helpful.  I probably should have been more clear that linking the citation would not affect my review.  In any event, in my opinion, this is a good article - congratulations.   GregJackP   Boomer!   11:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)