Talk:Cannabis in Oregon/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Hi! I'll be doing the GA review for this article, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • At the end of the "Events and attitudes" section, you phrase the sentences about House of Hemp in past tense. Have they gone out of business? If so, could you make this clear, please.
   • In the "Decriminalization" section, you say "Possession of 28.45 grams (1 ounce) or less is punishable by a $500 to $1,000 fine". Should this be 1 oz or more?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Please make a note in references that need to be registered for. Ref 24 (Green) and 31 (The War on the War...) are examples, but there may be more.
   • I added one fact tag where I would like to see a reference.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Has there been any research done on how this law has affected the state's court and penal systems? For example, has there been a reduction in the backlog of court cases, or are jails less crowded, in the 30+ years since the bill has been passed, or compared to other states that don't have cannabis legalized? If not, I understand, but it would be an interesting thing to know.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Overall this is a very nice article. I have a couple comments about prose and references, as well as one question about coverage, so I am going to place this review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the House of Hemp is gone now. I can find lots of refs that mention it as pioneering, but none that talk about it any time recently. The ref used for the statement uses the word "was" so I think that's best. There are a few other sources on the web that mention it, but they all mention it in terms of the early 1990s. Also, google maps doesn't bring up an address, so I think they went out of business.

I clarified the less than 1 ounce part. It's a fine, not a felony. I also added the penalties for more than one ounce so it's clear.[1]

I added registration required after the two refs.[2] I based it on Geograph_British_Isles#References since the template doesn't seem to have standard thing for it.

I found a ref for the fact tag. The changed the number of match the ref. Good find.[3]

I couldn't find anything reliable about a reduction in cases or prison overcrowding. That would be good info, though. I'll ask at the Oregon Wikiproject.[4]

Thanks for the review. Alcohol in Oregon is also a GAN if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Very nice work! I have seen that the Alcohol in Oregon article is up for GAN; I am working my way through the section it is in, and will probably get to it later this evening or tomorrow, unless someone else grabs it first. Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooray, thanks for a great review! Sorry I didn't catch this in time to help out with the citations etc. Also, FWIW -- GMaps doesn't really prove anything, except that the business has not bothered to enter themselves into the database. There are lots of businesses not listed on GMaps. -Pete (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.