Talk:Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: RadioKAOS (talk · contribs) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some convention of Supreme Court cases having separate articles which I am ignoring, I question whether this deserves to be a separate article, much less a good article, on account of its length. This article, Kensington mine and Coeur d'Alene Mines are all rather short articles which share much of the same content and many of the same references. The Kensington mine article was given only one rating in article feedback, 5 stars on completeness. This ignores the article itself, which states In 1928 the mine halted operations, yet gives no information whatsoever about its early history other than that fact. Consider researching the early history of the mine and consolidating content into one or perhaps two articles. Amazingly enough, I half expected this at first to be some sort of POV fork for the Lynn Canal Highway article, which suffers from major NPOV problems, but I don't see evidence of that.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this is my first GAN, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with the procedure, but I will respond to the initial reviewers comments here (feel free to move them as required).

I am unaware of any SCOTUS requirement for having a seperate article, but the case does meet the general notability guidelines, so there shouldn't be an issue with a stand alone article. With regards to the actual mine article, currently it could stand to be redirected to the case, as I don't think there is enough out there for an article outside of what is shown, although I haven't looked into expansion lately. I also don't see how the quality of the Kensington Mine article relates to the quality of this article.
I am unaware of any length requirement for a good article.
Coeur d'Alene Mines is a fairly sizeable mining company with six operating mines worldwide. The company article could use expansion, but that shouldn't stand in the way of this article being nominated. Even if the company article were expanded, inclusion of the content of this article in the company article would dominate the expanded article, in which case it would be better suited split anyway.
Inclusion of the early history of the mine would be more suited to an article about the mine than about the court case, I think that the mine operated 80 years ago is sufficient background information for the early history (for inclusion in an article about the SCOTUS case). Others may disagree, but I am unsure of what should be included, maybe life of mine production figures prior to closure, but I don't know where one would find that. Regardless I will have a look. Interestingly, all the sources in the article show the mine as operating until 1928, where the Alaska DNR states that the mine operated until 1938, while an adjacent project operated until 1928. Not sure where to go with that information.
Prior to reading this I had never heard of the Lynn Canal Highway.

--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

The Coeur d'Alene Mines article should be expanded well beyond the scope of this article, and the content here, especially if this article is expanded, doesn't belong in the Kensington mine article.
Don't see the relevance of the year of cessation of mining in this article unless it was a factor in the case.
This article merits expansion. In particular, it would be worthwhile commenting on whether any other cases follow this precedent, whether any other other USACE decisions based on these criteria have been challenged, whether there have been any efforts to overturn the regulatory change that led to this being a USACE decision, etc. In addition, it would be useful to describe the regulatory change in more detail, and to elucidate Bader Ginsburg's dissent further (in particular, the description makes it seems as though she agrees with the conclusion of the court but just finds it bad policy). ^Bongo_matic 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.