Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Antoine v. Washington"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Iselilja
(Reviewing; some issues)
imported>GregJackP
(DYK fixes, including required slave labor)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
:*Otherwise, the article is neat, and allthough I can't assess whether all the judicial details are correctly presented, the article appears logical and consistent.  
 
:*Otherwise, the article is neat, and allthough I can't assess whether all the judicial details are correctly presented, the article appears logical and consistent.  
 
:*Regards, [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 02:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 
:*Regards, [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 02:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
Addressing:
 +
:Reviewed [[Template:Did you know nominations/John Baker White (West Virginia politician)|John Baker White (West Virginia politician)]].
 +
:Added sources for the Argument section.
 +
:Young is available on HeinOnLine, search terms Author (Rowland Young), Title (Supreme Court Report).  The relevant section title in the article is "Indian Hunting Rights Guaranteed in 1891 Treaty."
 +
:Typically the vote tally will only be in the text if it is relevant and/or commented on extensively by reliable sources.  It was neither in this case.
 +
:You could ask at [[WP:LAW]] or [[WP:SCOTUS]] if you want someone to go over the legal issues, but I'm confident that they are correct.  Most of the articles I write (all 3 FAs and most of the GAs) are in this area. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span>  05:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 +
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 05:05, 28 November 2013

Antoine v. Washington

Created by GregJackP (talk). Self nominated at 06:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC).

  • 16px I cannot see a reviw by the nominator and I believe he has more than five previous DYKs?
  • The article is new and long enough. The sources are mostly offline, allthough I have consulted the case paper here, so I cannot check for copyvio/close paraphrasing and will have to AGF.
  • The paragraphs in section "Arguments" are unsourced, but for one source that does not directly back up the claims in the section.
  • As for the hook; it's not easy to make complicated law into a short fact hook. The sentence I found that is closest to backing up the hook is "Brennan then noted that even though the statute did not explicitly state it reserved hunting and fishing rights for the Indians, it must be construed in that manner since the agreement stated that the rights "shall not be taken away or in anywise abridged." I think it might be helpful if article writer provided an online citation from the relevant part of "Young".
  • I had to consult the infobox to find the vote tally in the case; that's something I would have expected to find in the body of the article; allthough I am not familiar with the practice for writing about US supreme court cases.
  • Otherwise, the article is neat, and allthough I can't assess whether all the judicial details are correctly presented, the article appears logical and consistent.
  • Regards, Iselilja (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Addressing:

Reviewed John Baker White (West Virginia politician).
Added sources for the Argument section.
Young is available on HeinOnLine, search terms Author (Rowland Young), Title (Supreme Court Report). The relevant section title in the article is "Indian Hunting Rights Guaranteed in 1891 Treaty."
Typically the vote tally will only be in the text if it is relevant and/or commented on extensively by reliable sources. It was neither in this case.
You could ask at WP:LAW or WP:SCOTUS if you want someone to go over the legal issues, but I'm confident that they are correct. Most of the articles I write (all 3 FAs and most of the GAs) are in this area. GregJackP Boomer! 05:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)