Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregJackP (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 6 August 2022 (→GA Review: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

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)

The article looks great and nearly a GA. A few comments:

• The two "according two" in this sentence make things unclear, please fix: "This approach, according to tribal sovereignty advocates, would "completely erase tribal sovereignty" according to Lauren van Schilfgaarde."
• "by the Minnesota court." When you say "the", you're referring to something particular, so which court is it referring to? The paragraph refers to a Nevada court, not a Minnesota one. Alternatively, you can change the "the" to "a".
• I would organize the "US District Court" as such:
  • an introductory sentence like "The Brackeens' lawsuit was filed in the federal District Court in Fort Worth in October 2017, and assigned to Judge Reed O'Connor. The Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians intervened in the case." Without this introductory sentence the reader is left wondering how did things go from the Texas court to the federal district court.
  • Then the plaintiffs and defendents sections, maybe merge the two into one section?
  • Then the judgement section.
• What is it meant by "all sides" in "all sides appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."? If it includes the non-Indian parents (Brackeens, Librettis etc) why did they appeal, it seems the judgement was in their favor?
• "it was a politically based law" should this be "politics based law"?
• The lead points out that 4 cases consolidated into one, this should also be mentioned in the body.
  • This then needs to be explained in the body what these four cases are.
• The lead also says "but that the parts of the law that required state agencies to perform certain acts" - what are these "certain acts"? Please expand on that.
• In news sources there is some discussion on how this law relates to the "Indian Commerce Clause" and "Interstate Commerce Clause". Can you expand on this in the article?

Thanks.VR _talk 08:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the formal review:

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well written. A few organization issues are pointed out above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The references' style is different than what I've seen on other wikipedia articles. But its consistent, and therefore ok. The sources look reliable. I've read a few sources and this article seems veririfable. No OR. Earwig says "violation unlikely".

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Some content issues are pointed out above, where more information is needed about certain parts of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I have researched this issue myself and find this article to uphold NPOV's core value: that all significant viewpoints are presented in due proportion.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images of the courthouses are fine, but also the least relevant. The most relevant image is that of the Indian children in the background section. A more meaningful caption should be given. What exactly is the image showing us? It would also be great if we could have more relevant images, such as those of either the judges, or the parties involved.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Review on hold pending resolution of issues mentioned above.VR _talk 14:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I will get on this, sorry that RL had slowed down my response. GregJackP Boomer! 15:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)