Talk:United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster/GA1

GA Review

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: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 02:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Lead

• There are several references in the lead. Per MOS:LEADCITE, the lead repeats information in the body and so avoiding redundant citations is preferred. I personally prefer a lead without citations however it is not prohibited and so this is an optional issue to address given it is not a barrier to passing GA criteria.
• [1] Source check okay.
• [2] Source check okay
• Lead is an appropriate length. Short and and succinct, yet sufficient for the length of the article.
• Spelling and grammar are good. Well written.

Background

• I changed under permission of the Mint to with permission of the mint
• [8] Source check okay. Several short sentences prior to this citation are without citation but the facts are supported by this reference. Given they are one after the other, it is fine to just have the end of the paragraph cited. The wording is also very well paraphrased to contain facts from the source but summarised into authors own words.
• [7] is not the most reliable of sources, however because the fact is not controversial or likely to be challenged this is fine.
• Background is succinct yet sufficient.

Case

• [9] Source check okay and supports preceding sentences.
• Claim that Laxalt compared the case to modern-day David/Goliath battle is not referenced but previous and subsequent reference verifies statement. Totally original on behalf of the lawyer ;)
• [1] Again, source integrity okay. This is a primary reference, however I think for these uses it's fine.

Aftermath

• References both check out.

References

• A number of sources had no author name. I have added where located.

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.