Talk:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This is a nice candidate. It has some formatting issues, but it's well-written and reasonably complete.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * I made a number of copyedits to the article. Some were to fix grammar problems, but others were to improve clarity and fluidity of prose. If you disagree with any of these changes, feel free to revert and discuss. If not, then great!
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Resolved issue: There are some problems here. For one thing, the lead does not fully comply with Manual of Style/Lead section, in that it does not adequately summarize all sections of the article. The lead should be expanded to include information on the history of the fort (the school), arguments made (opinion, dissent), and repercussions. In addition, leads do not need citations except for direct quotes and particularly controversial statements, since the same facts will be sourced when they are expanded on in the body.


 * Resolved issue: Another problem is that there are too many very short sections. Manual of Style/Layout tells us "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose" and "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". You should merge some of the subsections of "Subsequent developments". Either they could all be one section, or perhaps just the "Legal impact", "Law reviews", and "Books" sections could be merged into a "Legal impact and citations" section. It would also be helpful if you mentioned some of the actions the United States has taken to reduce their exposure to trust claims, if the sources support it.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Not an issue: The "References" section should really be improved. Frequently-cited references like Holt, Welch, White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S., and others, should be pulled out into a separate section and referenced in a brief format, like at United States v. The Progressive. (If so, 537 U.S. 465 should be removed from the "External links" and moved into this new section instead.) Doing so will help the reader better locate the source, and will be necessary if you nominate this article for Featured status. (It is not a GA requirement, however.)
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * This article is well-sourced.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Resolved issue: Souter was not alone in his opinion, nor was Ginsberg in her concurrance, nor Thomas in his dissent. The sections on "Opinion of the Court", "Concurrence", and "Dissent" should end with a statement of which justices joined. In addition, as I stated above, it would be great if the article mentioned actions the U.S. has taken to reduce liability.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is admirably neutral. I don't know whether you approve or disapprove of this ruling.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The images are free and used appropriately, with good captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All issues have been resolved. This article fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The images are free and used appropriately, with good captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All issues have been resolved. This article fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Addressing:
 * Subsequent development section.
 * ✅, combined sections. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Referencing.
 * ❌. The Progressive article is not using Bluebook citations.  It uses the CS1 templates with a SFN template to create the Harvard style references.  Per WP:CITEVAR, there is no preferred or "house" style.  I typically use Bluebook, and as this is a legal article, it is appropriate to use a legal citation system (Bluebook).  I've also taken three articles to FA using the Bluebook style.  I appreciate the input on it though—most editors are not really familiar with Bluebook, so it has come up a couple of times. :)  GregJackP   Boomer!   19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. – Quadell (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinions.
 * Do you want something beside the listing in the infobox of which justices were with which opinion?
 * The infobox is great, but that info should be in the body, just so the body doesn't give the mistaken impression that only Thomas dissented, etc. Something like this would suffice: "Ginsburg was joined in her concurrence by Justice Breyer." – Quadell (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added statement to end of opinion and concurrence, and to start of dissent, to show which justices joined each opinion.   GregJackP   Boomer!   16:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look for something on the liability issue.  GregJackP   Boomer!   19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. Unfortunately, I haven't found anything, other than a general statement that the government has taken steps to reduce liability.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, based on subsequent lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duties as a trustee, I wonder if the BIA and other government politicians didn't just say that they have taken steps to try and deter other suits. I know that there hasn't been any overt indication of better practices.  The Corbell case alone resulted in a settlement of $3.4 billion to Indians - their lawyers collected $12 million in fees.  It makes it kind of hard to believe that the government really took any steps, but without someone saying so, it would just be OR on my part.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a good point. We can't go beyond the sources. – Quadell (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead.
 * ✅. Expanded.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your additions to the lead are excellent. I have copyedited the lead; feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. – Quadell (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral.
 * Thanks. I almost always side with the tribe, as I do here.   GregJackP   Boomer!   16:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)