Talk:Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/GA2

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: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: non found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
OK, there are some places where the prose falls below standard:

In 2005 Coeur was granted their permit to dispose of their tailings into Lower Slate Lake by the USACE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the basis of a definition of "fill material" which had been revised in 2002 under the administration of George W. Bush. The sentence is iover complex and the repeated "their"s, which I have bolded, are clumsy.
Replaced with In 2005 Coeur was granted a permit to dispose of tailings into Lower Slate Lake by the USACE under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The decision was based on the definition of "fill material" which had been revised in 2002 under the administration of George W. Bush. - Changed to two sentances (reads better now I think), and the their concerns have been addressed.

The permit allowed for dumping 4.5 million tons of a combination of waste rock and tailings of ten years, which would result in the floor elevation of Lower Slate Lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m). Do you mean "for ten years" rather than "of ten years"?
Over a 10 year period. Replaced with The permit allowed Coeur to dump 4.5 million tons of a combination of waste rock and tailings into the Lower Slate Lake over a period of ten years, resulting in the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m).

Following the Army Corps' permitting of the tailings disposal, Do you mean "Following the Army Corps' grating of permission for tailings disposal". Needs rewording, not really grammatical as it stands.
It isn't "permitting" as in "allowing", it is "issuing a permit". Replaced with ~~After the Army Corps issued the permit to dispose of the tailings.~~ (strikethrough, to many the in close proximity.)
After the Army Corps issued the permit allowing Coeur to dispose of tailings into Lower Slate Lake

agreeing that the USACE is indeed the appropriate body for the permitting of mine waste discharge into Lower Slate Lake. Again "permitting of" isn't right.
Same as above, but changed to agreeing that the USACE is indeed the appropriate body to issue a permit to discharge mine waste into Lower Slate Lake

Please go through again and clean up the prose.
Done (I think).

The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD.
Expanded the lead to include a brief summary of the description.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sources look good, adequate referencing, no OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The subsequent developments section should have something about the bill introduced to reverse the Bush administration's loosening of protection. There may be updates, the news report is over two years old.
I added mention of the the Clean Water Protection Act, which I was unaware of. I had looked for subsiquent developments before I nominated it, and found nothing. If the Clean Water Protection Acto passes, there will likely be an impact, but not yet.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
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):
No images used.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. An interesting article, how bizarre that the Army has responsibility for licensing mine waste disposal. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK this passes muster now, Happy to list. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on it, was offline for a few days.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I (think I) completed all the reccomendations. I have been through the prose several times, although I am also not the best writer...but I think it is more readable now. The bill for the Clean Water Protection Act had been raised before the decision and was mostly directed at mountain-top removal mining (from what I have found) but would certainly have an impact on this decision should it pass.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:15, 6 December 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.