Talk:Kawakita v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

US arrest[edit]

Article: "Shortly after his return to the United States, he was recognized by one of the former POWs and subsequently arrested." Uh, what are the odds? Any information on how or where this happened? 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: US arrest[edit]

Actually, I do have information on that. My great-uncle, William Leon Bruce, did, in fact, see Kawakita while furniture shopping with my great-aunt Jean. If you would like more information on that, here's a link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: US arrest[edit]

Oh - sorry forgot Yes President Eisenhower commuted Kawakita's sentence to life in 1953, and yes President Kennedy released him in 1963, deported him to Japan and banned him from ever entering the U.S. - and yet, he lives in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination[edit]

I just finished a major rewrite of this article, and I've nominated it for Good Article status. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kawakita v. United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kawakita v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)