# Talk:United States v. Cotterman

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States v. Cotterman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 22:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
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): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Infobox
No issues


### Background
No issues


### Opinion of the Ninth Circuit panel
No issues


### Rehearing en banc
No issues


### References
No issues

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided that it meets every aspect of the good article criteria. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

 This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Cyberlaw and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page. 
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)