Talk:National Forest Management Act of 1976

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pvorapharuek.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of NFMA of 1976 Article

Hey Nate,

Great job! I had no idea this even existed!

Here are my comments/questions: 1) Italicize the court cases. 2) Are you adding in citations for the NFMA timeline? 3) Your sentence, "NFMA changed forest planning by obliging the Forest Service" is "obliging" suppose to be "obligating"? 4) There is a lot of text in the beginning - could you take the second paragraph (starting with the "NFMA changed forest planning...etc." and create a Background/History section and elaborate on the history in there? I always think of the beginning of the wikipedia article should just be the summary snapshot of the topic - that is just my opinion. 5) I think there is typo in "The NFMA Planning Process" section in number 5 - " 'no action, alternative".

Liz White

Elizabethwhite11 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(A) how about "by obliging" >> "requiring"?

(B) When in doubt about the part above the table of contents, see WP:LEADSECTION.

(C) Some background would be good; I reverted the timeline because to the extent it provided background and context those things were only implied and not at all obvious.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from an uninvolved Wikipedian

Some suggestions for the article from an uninvolved Wikipedian:

Basic things that should be added: Where is this statute codified? It appears to be 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614. What regulations have been promulgated under the statute and when and where can we find them? What agency promulgated those regulations? It looks like the "1982 Rule" may be the major regulations but I'm not sure if that's all. The rules are published in the federal register and it would be useful to have federal register (FR) citations. The final regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). At least some regs are at 36 CFR 219.12 (and the preceding and following sections).
From reading the article, I can't tell how the law operates. Who does it apply to and when? The "background" section blends what the law does with the need for the law. I would have a separate background section explaining the context in which the law arose, then write a new section about how the law operates that is clearer.
The Integrated Land Management reference is useful but this is just explaining what the regulations say. For stuff like that be sure to include a reference to the primary source (in that case 36 CFR 219.12).
How did you choose the cases in the "legal battles" section? There are two Supreme Court cases citing 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (a section of the NFAM that appears to the be the subject of much litigation), as well as 247 appellate court decisions. (Plus 502 district court decisions.)

Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Review/Comments

Follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking, avoid over linking to articles in your lead section. Make links only where they are relevant and helpful to the article context.
Ohio Forestry Association v. Sierra Club -- Maybe expand on this case. Was the case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States?

- User:Totranm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Forest Management Act of 1976. 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/20100612053009/http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/nfma.html to http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/nfma.html

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

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) 03:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]