# Talk:United States v. Ramsey (1926)

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States v. Ramsey (1926)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a review of this article.  North8000 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


### Review discussion
What an interesting article!    My thanks to the authors for creating it in a topic area where many people are confused and could benefit from it. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is about a court case which which decided which situations invoked federal court jurisdiction.   After it gets to covering that, there is a statement "In 1890, this law was amended to give the federal courts in western Arkansas and eastern Texas jurisdiction over the Indian Territory...."  This is unclear, but more importantly the way that it is unclear is by being a "blanket" statement, such overgeneralization being in direct conflict with what this article is about. Could you clarify?   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Added material just before the sentence that should clarify.  Let me know if more is needed. GregJackP Boomer!  22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Cool.   Still a bit hard to understand/follow but I think good enough.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to questions about inclusion of images, I'm generally on the "include" side.    But the FBI badge seems pretty unrelated.   First, as the article itself states, the FBI didn't even exist at that time......the precursor agency was involved.   That combined with the indirectness of relation to the topic of the article.  What do you think?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed badge. GregJackP Boomer!  22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The title of the article is the US Supreme Court case, yet the coverage of the Supreme court case is only a few sentences, about 5% of the article.   I think that the other 95% is also good material for the article, but IMHO, expansion of coverage of the Supreme court case itself is also needed, given that it is the subject of the article.   Sincerely,, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is not a whole lot to the SCOTUS decision.  In the Supreme Court Reporter version, it is less than two pages.  The key point was that if the crime was committed on trust land or allotted land (as this was), it could still fall under federal jurisdiction under the statute's definition of "Indian country."  As soon as the simple jurisdictional issue was handled, it went back for trial, which is the main story.  Most of the resources discussing the matter handle it the same way.  I don't know how much more I can add, just because of the type of decision that was made.  GregJackP Boomer!  23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. After your response I read through it and see your point.  Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that while the title is that of the Scotus case, that the article is about the event that it was part of.  IMO that is fine, and a good way to name it.North8000 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


### GA criteria final checklist
Well-written

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria.   Has 5 images, no non-free images, so no article-specific use-rationales are required.  North8000 (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


### Result
This passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Interesting topic, and nice work! North8000 (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(this is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded) 
This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article.  Congratulations; nice work!  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on United States v. Ramsey (1926). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729090945/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OS005.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/O/OS005.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711204126/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v019/v019p070.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v019/v019p070.html
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6IuNe3DBH to http://blog.nmai.si.edu/main/2011/03/the-osage-murders-oil-wealth-betrayal-and-the-fbis-first-big-case.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527100112/http://www.lb8.uscourts.gov/pubsandservices/histsociety/coa8_shorthist.html to http://www.lb8.uscourts.gov/pubsandservices/histsociety/coa8_shorthist.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)