Talk:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Thank you for nominating this article. Here are my notes from my first reading through it:[reply]

Please fix these disamb links: Omnibus and Tacking. The robot says all links check out.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

"having ceded the entirety of the rest of their claim to North and South Carolina to the British in 1760 and 1763."->"having ceded to the British the entirety of the rest of their claim to North and South Carolina in 1760 and 1763." - place indirect object first in sentence.

"South Carolina purchased the land in 1840 with the Treaty of Nation Ford, without federal involvement." - Was some of the land in North Carolina, but just not covered by this lawsuit and treaty? If so, this should be made clear. Also, I think that you mean, "South Carolina entered into the Treaty of National Ford to purchased the land in 1840, but did not seek federal approval of that treaty." The U.S. Supreme Court decision indicates that all 144,000 acres are in present-day South Carolina.

"The Treaty provided the tribe"->"The Treaty promised the tribe" - the tribe claims they never got $5,000 worth of new land.

"Since 1763, the tract had become Rock Hill, South Carolina." - which tract, the original 225 sq mile tract or the subsequent smaller reservation tract?

You don't define "termination act." I suggest you add "(Division Act)" just before footnote 10 and then use Division Act rather than termination act or "the Act" in the rest of the article.

"The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari after this ruling.[27]"->"The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari after this ruling.[27]"

"The Supreme Court declined certiorari to review this decision.[30]"->"The U.S. Supreme Court declined certiorari to review this decision.[30]" - once the article discusses both the SC and US Supreme Court, we should be clear as to which court we are discussing.

"each land-owner would have a fact specific defense of adverse possession"->"each land-owner could potentially have a fact-specific defense of adverse possession"

"$50M.[1]"->"$50,000,000.[1]"

"passed in August 1993 right after President Bill Clinton's omnibus budget legislation." - what does this mean? What is the causal connection? Was the $50 million in the budget?

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
"Since 1763, the tract had become Rock Hill, South Carolina." - need ref.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Do we have any measure of the impact? How did SC pay for their share?

Was the $50 million divided among the remaining living members of the tribe? How did it compare to the amount requested?

How much was awarded as attorney fees?

B. Focused:
I will wait for a second reading before evaluating this criteria.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The last quote from Christy is a bit POV-pushing.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that my recent edits have resolved your comments. In several places, you requested additional information. I am unable to answer these questions from the available, published sources. In several cases, I have a strong guess, but have chosen to resist the temptation for original research. There is quite a dearth of published information about this case, and I take it as a compliment that what I have done so far as raised your expectations to that level. As per the final Christy quote, I agree that Christy has an opinion, but it has been quoted and attributed as such. Being as he has written the most comprehensive published article on this case, I think the reader is entitled to have a small taste of his opinion. Savidan 02:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist, keep the Christy quote. I do not intend to tempt you into original research. Again, you chose to define "the termination act" but then go ahead and use "the Act". Please define one term or acronym, and then use it consistently to refer to the statute. Please fix the disamb. links to Omnibus and Tacking, by adding pipes to your use of those links in this article. You imply a causal link between the appropriations bill and the approval of the settlement, and you also use President Clinton's name. Why? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the remaining reference to "the Act" and the dab links. As for the appropriations bill, I imply only a chronological link. The omnibus bill passed, then the termination act was passed next. It is well-known that budget bills are in large part prepared by the White House, and are thus traditionally associated with the sitting president. The version as it currently stands is supported by the source. I do not imply a causal link (although I think I could extrapolate one'; again, original research). Savidan 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say after the repeal of the termination act, "This left the Catawba tribe in tact to receive the settlement payment." I think we need to say who got the money. The Wikipedia article indicates that the tribe still exists and obtains casino and bingo revenue. See "Catawaba Indians Tentatively Approve Land Settlement". The Times News. February 21, 1993. p. 2. Retrieved March 1, 2011. If we can resolve this issue, we are done. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the article for the fact that the tribe approved the settlement. You appear to have assumed that the termination act somehow "dissolved" the tribe, which is not the case. As you can see from the party name, they remained a non-profit corporation. Nor does the article you cite say anything like that. Savidan 19:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both the 1959 Act as well as the settlement affected the tribe's sovereignty. As I understand it, many tribes shifted from a collective form of tribal ownership to individual ownership, although the tribe continued in a corporate sense. We are done. Congratulations on another good article. Racepacket (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]