Talk:Kawakita v. United States/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Per Earwig, the second paragraph under Opinion of the Court is written almost verbatim in the wording of the United States Supreme Court in its legal document. Either put it in quotes, or reword. (See nominator comments at bottom, issue resolved)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead needs to be expanded. Example: Yasui v. United States (See nominator comments at bottom, issue resolved)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Nominator has been the primary editor in 2015, no edit wars happening.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   OK - Tomoya Kawakita image has appropriate non-free use rationale.

   OK - Justice William O Douglas on Commons is from the Library of Congress and has no copyright restrictions.

   Need source link to replace dead link; summary information needs to be provided - Fred m vinson on Commons. (See nominator comments at bottom, issue resolved)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Need WP:ALT, per WP:CAP (See nominator comments at bottom, issue resolved)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Richwales: This nomination is on hold for 7 days to allow you time to deal with the issues noted above. — Maile (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done the following. Please let me know how the article looks now.

• I rewrote the description of the Opinion of the Court, and made other tweaks throughout the article, to address copyright violation concerns.
• I expanded the lead section.
• I replaced the painting of Fred Vinson with a Library of Congress photo whose source is unquestioned.
• I added alternate texts to the images which didn't already have them.

If you see other problems, or if you feel I haven't adequately addressed the original concerns, please let me know and I'll do more work. Thanks again for reviewing this article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! This nomination has passed. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a small fix to the placement of the "alt=" parameter on the Vinson image; the "alt=" text, along with its parameter tag, was showing up in the regular visible caption. Please check this and let me know if it looks OK to you now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw that. Everything is fine. Good job. — Maile (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)