Wikipedia

Talk:Bryan v. Itasca County/GA2

< Talk:Bryan v. Itasca County
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ruby2010 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is my first time reviewing a law article, but I think I should be able to give it a GA-quality review (I'm currently taking a law class, albeit in education; plus, for what it's worth, I'm from Minnesota). The earliest I can probably post a full review is Friday though, for which I apologize. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Preliminary comments
  • Luther's argument seems pretty brief (and flimsy). Was there nothing else he used in his argument? You say there was "no dispute as to the facts of the case," so did he concede that the mobile home was on reservation land? I just feel there could be a few more added details here.
  • Prose issue: beware of the amounts of "that" you're using; some are redundant (such as in the first paragraph detailing Brennan's decision)
  • "This ruling in a challenge to a tax bill ..." this sentence doesn't seem quite right (missing/improper word?)
  • "...had the effect of enabling Indian tribes to earn over $200 billion in gaming revenue". This is a rather vague statement. Is there a year for this (as of 2012?) I assume the source means nationwide (all tribes)?
  • "The first such cases involved bingo..." I would be more specific here. Perhaps reword to "The first cases influenced by Bryan involved bingo..."
  • The lead could do a better job summarizing the article -- I would briefly add case significance and impact, for instance.

Overall this is a solid article. Please take my initial comments with a grain of salt -- I'd be happy to relook at my suggestions if you disagree with any of them. I'll give you three days to respond to this review, and will then add more comments, if needed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 01:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Response, in order listed:

  • Luther's argument. There was no question that the mobile home was on reservation property, it is noted in the History section as being on the reservation. I expanded somewhat on his argument (his argument was only 9 minutes long at SCOTUS). In addition, Minnesota stipulated to the facts in the case--the only dispute was whether the state could impose taxes on reservation land.
    •   Done
  • I'll correct and reword the excessive use of "that."
    •   Done
  •   Done - reworded tax bill sentence.
  •   Done - added additional info to sentence.
  •   Done - used your suggested language.
  • I'll look at this and revise. It may take more than three days - I've got a good deal going on in real life, but I should be able to get to it within a week, it that would be possible.
    •   Done - added a sentence on the impact of the decision to the lead.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 02:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bryan_v._Itasca_County/GA2&oldid=1079332181"