This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vice regent (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 25 June 2022 (→GA Review: good luck). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:53, 25 June 2022 by Vice regent (talk | contribs) (→GA Review: good luck)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 06:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I will start reading this article and will post a review shortly.VR talk 06:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- One thing that is missing right off the back is the public debate regarding the ICWA and the views of the various stakeholders: tribal advocates and (mainly white) prospective adoption parents. With that, there should also be a brief history of legislation that forced assimilation of Indians in the US (see for example Roe_v._Wade#Background) that would give context. Some of this is covered in this POLITICO article.VR talk 07:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, I'll look at it, but I'm moving this week, so it may be slow.I added a sentence, with reference and footnote to the Brackeen adoption section, this will be more thoroughly covered in the arguments section of the case, at least based on my skimming the filed briefs. In any event, this shouldn't be a disqualifier, as it has "broad coverage" of the material and doesn't need the comprehensive approach of a featured article.GregJackP Boomer! 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)- Just as an FYI, the outcome of this review will either be "pass" or "on hold", not "fail". And in case of "on hold" I'll give you lots of time to fix issues. So don't worry about addressing concerns ASAP and good luck with your move!VR talk 17:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)