Talk:United States v. Ramsey (1926)/GA1

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion
What an interesting article! My thanks to the authors for creating it in a topic area where many people are confused and could benefit from it.  North8000  (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a court case which which decided which situations invoked federal court jurisdiction. After it gets to covering that, there is a statement "In 1890, this law was amended to give the federal courts in western Arkansas and eastern Texas jurisdiction over the Indian Territory...." This is unclear, but more importantly the way that it is unclear is by being a "blanket" statement, such overgeneralization being in direct conflict with what this article is about. Could you clarify? Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added material just before the sentence that should clarify. Let me know if more is needed.  GregJackP   Boomer!   22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool.  Still a bit hard to understand/follow but I think good enough.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to questions about inclusion of images, I'm generally on the "include" side. But the FBI badge seems pretty unrelated. First, as the article itself states, the FBI didn't even exist at that time......the precursor agency was involved. That combined with the indirectness of relation to the topic of the article. What do you think? Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed badge. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolved.  North8000  (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article is the US Supreme Court case, yet the coverage of the Supreme court case is only a few sentences, about 5% of the article. I think that the other 95% is also good material for the article, but IMHO, expansion of coverage of the Supreme court case itself is also needed, given that it is the subject of the article. Sincerely,,  North8000  (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is not a whole lot to the SCOTUS decision. In the Supreme Court Reporter version, it is less than two pages.  The key point was that if the crime was committed on trust land or allotted land (as this was), it could still fall under federal jurisdiction under the statute's definition of "Indian country."  As soon as the simple jurisdictional issue was handled, it went back for trial, which is the main story.  Most of the resources discussing the matter handle it the same way.  I don't know how much more I can add, just because of the type of decision that was made.   GregJackP   Boomer!   23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. After your response I read through it and see your point. Resolved.  North8000  (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that while the title is that of the Scotus case, that the article is about the event that it was part of. IMO that is fine, and a good way to name it. North8000  (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist
Well-written Factually accurate and verifiable Broad in its coverage Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Illustrated, if possible, by images
 * Meets this criteria  North8000  (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria  North8000  (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria  North8000  (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria  North8000  (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria.  North8000  (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Meets this criteria.  Has 5 images, no non-free images, so no article-specific use-rationales are required.  North8000 (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Result
This passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Interesting topic, and nice work!  North8000  (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)