Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 20:54, 11 April 2012.

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

 * Nominator(s): kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the Featured Article Criteria. I think it is well written (although I am not in the habit of calling myself, or my writing, brilliant), and covers the topic well. I have looked for media to include, and alwyas come up short, even in my request to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for some PD images. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments: - MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Tailing[s]' needs to be linked; I would say it is by no means a term familiar to general readers.
 * Tailings is linked in the lead.
 * 'resulting in the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m).' reads slightly awkwardly. Perhaps: 'causing a rise of 50 ft in the floor elevation of the lake'?
 * It is awkward, I changed it to "causing the floor elevation of the lake to rise 50 ft." It's a little less wordy than both.
 * No citations for the third paragraph in Background; are there statements here whose validity might be disputed?
 * They were souced with the same reference as in the following paragraph, but should have had a reference at the end of the paragraph, it's done now.
 * The lede does not discuss any material from "Subsequent Developments".
 * I'm having a think about how to do this...
 * Expanded the lead (lede) section to discuss the sub dev section.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC) While the sources used seem reliable, there are only 6 of them. What steps have you taken to look for additional material? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Newspaper names should be italicized
 * Done.
 * Use a consistent date format
 * Done. I thought I had (DMY), but I hadn't, so I switched it all to MDY (US topic, use US dating).
 * Be consistent in whether you use "AP" or "Associated Press"
 * Done - opted for full spelling
 * This source gives a publication date of June 22, but you say May 23 - why?
 * Stupidity on my part? Only reason I can think of, It's fixed.
 * Single pages should use "p."; "pp." is for multiple pages
 * Yes they should be, when I used the handy template tool at the top to add it, it used the field "pages" rather than "page", it's fixed now, and I know to check that in the future :).
 * Don't need retrieval date for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
 * Removed, it had came up when I did the "check links" prior to nominating it, so I added then.
 * Isn't this the same as the version in the Seattle Times? It lists the same author and title
 * Yes they have the same author and title, and cover a lot of the same information, but they were written a day apart, and don't say the exact same thing. For example. the Seattle Times does not list the reaction of Sarah Palin.  However, all the material that was sourced by the SPI can be sourced with The Guardian, however not vise versa.  I am replacing have replaced all the SPI references with TG.
 * The last "big look" I did was when during the GA review in December last year, there is nothing new coming out of the decision, and I didn't find it referenced as precidence in any other cases (the question I was asked at GA). I have also looked on the EPA and the USACE websites for pictures to include, but haven't found anything.  I have found the EPA Record of Decision and the USACE Notice of Application for Permit.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to any of those.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness concerns: Comparing with FA United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Missing: I found the same and other info by a google search: OyezLII-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Details of Opinion
 * Details of Concurrence
 * Advocates
 * Arguments and counter-arguments etc.
 * Will look at adding (noted below as well).

Comments from Noleander End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow up? - "In March 2009 the Clean Water Protection Act was brought before ...." - Need to say what happened to that 2009 proposal.  It was 3 yrs ago: did the law pass?
 * Last I saw (late 2011) it had been brought forward, but not passed. According to this it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
 * Wording - "... is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake...." - Sounds like the court favored the _permit_, when the court was probably favoring the mining company.
 * Will look into it, probably a better way to word it.
 * More detail? - Since it was a 6-3 split decision, the reader probably wants a bit more detail on the (a) arguments of the majority; & (b) arguments of the minority.   Also, include a couple of key quotes (if there are any) from the majority.
 * Will look into it, using sources above.
 * Precedent? - What later SCOTUS cases, if any, relied on this case?
 * None that I have found.
 * Map? - Since this case  about a lake, it would be appropriate to include a  geographic locator box in the article, showing where the  Lower Slate Lake is; and where the mine is.
 * Not sure about usability, because the mine and the lake are so close together, the difference might not show up on the Alaska locator map, although it could show the location of one of the entities.

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Image is unproblematic. I don't suppose it would be possible to find a more representative image? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Image of the lake or of the judge who wrote opinion can be used. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.