Talk:A. J. Rosier

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A. J. Rosier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muttnick (talk · contribs) 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Howdy! It has been awhile since I did a GA article review and this looks like an interesting one. I'll do my review over the coming days.

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Overall

Hey, @Curbon7: You did a really good job on this article. I admire your devotion to the subject and the article is just about on point. I think the issues I found with the article probably stem from an unfamiliarity with the law and unsupported inferences from sources that we are all apt to make, especially when digesting a large volume of information at once.

You are a good writer. But the large paragraphs in this article should be split up and each paragraph should have a topic sentence. For instance, the last paragraph in the political career section should be split so that the discussion of the governor's death is its own paragraph. You should also add a short paragraph to the lede highlighting Rosier's accomplishments as an attorney and as a legislator.

Below is my review, section by section. I am looking forward to your subsequent work on this article. Thank you for creating it--it was a pleasure to learn about.

Montana section

Overall, this section is almost there. However, Rosier's legal career in Montana should be highlighted more. Here are my points:

• I think the fact that the Moxley decision set case law precedent in Wyoming is worth noting. The case is cited in these law review articles on page 356 and page 173. It is also cited in over ten secondary sources on Lexis if you have access to that.Y
• A.J. Rosier was also an attorney in State v. Dist. Ct. of Second Jud. Dist. of Montana, Silver Bow Cnty., 37 Mont. 485, 97 P. 841 (1908) which set precedent that the inability to obey a court order is a valid legal defense to a charge of contempt for its violation. That case is still good law and may be worth noting but if left out, the article would still be comprehensive enough
• For the sentence "Rosier took part in other civil, criminal, and divorce trials", the first citation does not provide support for the claim that Rosier participated in a civil trial in that matter, just that he was engaged to do so and the plaintiff was willing to settle before a trial occurred. Because divorce trials are civil trials you could just alter the sentence with support from the other citations.Y
• The fact that George M. Bourquin was in fact appointed to the court seat should be noted.Y

Wyoming section

• Here's a citation to the Carbon County case if you want to direct reader's attention to it: Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Carbon Cnty. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 25 Wyo. 463, 171 P. 668 (1918)Y (I think)
• I'd split the second to last paragraph into two paragraphs starting with "In another trial in 1918..."Y

Political career section

• Based on the citation provided, Rosier did not argue that the fraudulent conveyances statute would be "mistakenly applied" to husbands transferring property to wives but that as it was written, it would apply to such a circumstance. It should also be noted that the bill would have defined what a fraudulent conveyance is.Y
• I'd note that the bank guarantee bill that Rosier commented on did not pass that legislative session.Y
• The sentence "Rosier introduced two noteworthy bills in 1929; one bill would allow "any mechanic, artisan, civil engineer, garageman, or laborer" who "bestow[ed] labor upon any article of personal property" or who "furnish[ed] materials from which [property] is made or repaired" to be given "a lien upon such personal property" should be made more readable for the general public. You could say something along the lines of: Rosier introduced a bill to allow mechanics, civil engineers, and other laborers to put a mechanic's lien on personal property.Y
• More details on the 1929 investigation of the state law enforcement department should be added for context (particularly the charges of prohibition laws being violated), including the result of that committee's investigation. A source for this can be found here on pages 404-405, and others.Y
• The citation for the sentence on Rosier's appointment to the steering committee does not support the fact that the committee is or was "powerful"--though they often are. I spent five minutes trying to find a citation for that statement for you to no avail. If you're luck isn't any better, perhaps just tell the reader what the steering committee did so that they get an impression on the importance of the assignment.

• Was unable to find specific wording on what the Wyoming Senate steering committee did in this period, so I think that redirect link will have to carry a lot of weight. Curbon7 (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• The citation for the 1/4th allocation from a $2.8 million fund for county roads does not support the fact that the $2.8 million constituted the entirety of Wyoming's highway budget only that the money came from voter-approved highway bonds. A quick google search shows by the 1910s the state's State Highway Commission matched federal funds for highways, leading me to believe there was other money floating about in the budget for highways.Y

Personal life

• The reader should be informed of what a potentate is.

• Re-worded that paragraph entirely to be closer to the source. Curbon7 (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

References

• Thanks for the review my friend. I'll work through your comments over the course of the week, I'm in the midst of travelling at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Muttnick, Hello, apologies for the long delay! My personal life became quite busy these past couple months, and I was not able to commit a lot of time here. I believe I have addressed all of your points, besides the optional second point in the Montana section, as I don't have the legal knowledge to know how to tackle that. With that in mind, I tried my best with some of the legal bits, but it may be worth re-checking as I am not very fluent in legalese! Curbon7 (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7:, no worries on the delay! I made some slight adjustments to your work but overall, the article is now GA status. Congratulations! I hope things quiet down in your personal life. Take care. Muttnik talk 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)