This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
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.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
A fact from Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 December 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was obligated to pay in full any contracts that it had entered into with Indian tribes?
I almost took this on as reviewer for a good article. It looks like an interesting and encyclopedic topic and article. What I saw immediately is immense reliance on primary sources. This looks like it would be too big of a job to fix in the middle of a GA review and so I avoided the situation of probably being forced to fail an article by not taking it on for review. Also, while there is no policy requirement for on-line references, the fact that nearly all of the references are off line (and with very abbreviated descriptions which I think that only legal experts could understand) would make it a near-impossible task to discern to what extent the material is supported by sources. If you'd like me to take it on despite the above (in which case it might require much work to pass) please drop me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to do so. I hope that my comments are useful. Looks like much good work has been done on this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had deleted the above comment because I decided that it had a risk of influencing potential reviewers, and I did not want to do so. Subsequiently someone de-nominated it because the main author and nominator is retired. After that I restored my comment for future reference. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yash!, please feel free to contact me if there is anything that needs to be improved/corrected/fixed as you complete this GA review. The nominator recently retired, so they likely won't be available to make corrections during the GA review process. I am familiar with this case, and I am well versed in this subject area, so please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay to use common links such as Native American in the lead. So, please link "Native American".
"This case" -> "The case"
Remove "finally".
✅ - I edited the lead according to your suggestions, and I also edited the first sentence to clarify the Court's holding. Let me know if you think anything else needs to be changed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the main article template as it is used wrongly (the article is linked in the first sentence and we are talking about the background and not the region).
Unlink "Administrative subdivision".
Unlink "Navjo Nation" the second time it appears (in "Navjo tribe").
"The entire Navajo Nation" -> "The Navajo Nation".
Need a period after "enrolled members".
Why is "T" inside "[[]]" ("[T]he")?
✅ - I modified this section according to your suggestions. However, I did not change the Manuelito quotation (beginning with the letter "T" in brackets). I don't have access to this offline source, but I presume the first letter was placed in brackets because it is not capitalized in the source material. If you begin a sentence with a quotation, and the first word of the quoted material does not begin with a capital letter, you should use brackets to change the source material so that you can begin the sentence with a capital letter (see MOS:QUOTE). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✅ - I changed the "main article" template to a "see also" template; I think it is useful to keep the "see also" link because the IDEAA provides additional information about a topic that is summarized in this subsection. However, I left the word "shortfall" in the article because it is a term of art in the law that is used to describe a situation when legislative appropriations fail to cover all actual expenses (see the explanation at this article). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The court then noted that when" -> "The court noted that when".
✅ - I changed the "2d" notation to "second" (2d is sometimes used as a shorthand abbreviation for the word "second"). I also fixed changed "the court noted ..." per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Carter G. Phillips. Phillips" -> "Carter G. Phillips. He".
Shouldn't it be "complete" instead of "completed", in "...United States to perform a service and completed its obligations...".
✅ - For your first suggestion, I changed the language to say: "The Ramah Navajo Chapter was represented by Carter G. Phillips, who argued that ...." As for your second suggestion, the word "completed" is correct here because it is referring to the fact that the Chapter already completed its obligations under the contract. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although some editors use this template, I prefer to not use it because it displaces the column width of the references. If you feel strongly, I can add the template. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This will be it for now. I will have another go at the article once these issues have been addressed. Sorry for the delay. Yash!10:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if there is more work that needs to be done. Thanks again for reviewing this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
