Talk:United States v. John (1978)

Categories

I added the category United States Native American criminal jurisdiction case law. Any review of this article should ensure that all appropriate categories have been added to the article. I suspect that there are more such categories. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm not qualified enough in law to give this a full good article review, but I did want to observe that the lead should probably be more extensive per WP:LEAD; at a minimum, the lead should usually touch on each of the article's sections. Thanks for your work on this one, and good luck getting this up to GA status! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States v. John (1978)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Philosopher (talk · contribs) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Beginning review: The version I am reviewing is oldid 532127992.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1a.

"John objected to state jurisdiction, which was denied" should be rephrased.

Explain how/why the U.S. and Mississippi are both parties in the case and what their relationships to each other are. This seems to be assumed, but isn't stated or explained. The first obvious reference to it seems to be in #Arguments, when they get their own subsections. It should be mentioned in the lead (important fact) and mentioned/briefly explained in the #Procedural history.

What is § 1153? It is mentioned without explanation in the opinion of the court section.

"Reversed and remanded as to the decision of the Fifth Circuit, and reversed as to the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court." apparently isn't a quote, but it sounds line one because it's phrased as a command. Rephrase as a description of what the Court did.

Ditto for the sentence preceding it: "The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the crime in question, and the State of Mississippi is without jurisdiction"

"One of the results of John was likely the basis" This sounds like you are referring to a single result of John as the basis for something else, instead of the case itself being the basis. Rephrase for clarity.

From #History, "By 1835, most of the tribe had be removed" Had been?

The paragraphs under #Arguments have the same problem that the opinion section does - they start out with "argued that" and quickly begin sounding like "it is a fact that".

The wikilink for items mentioned both in notes and in the text should be in the text. If the note is before the textual reference, they could perhaps be in the note as well (I'm not quite sure), but need to be in the body of the text regardless, for the people who don't read the notes.

1b.

Fails WP:LEAD. A single sentence is not appropriate for an article of this length, even granting that it could be split into two or three sentences. The lead fails to adequately summarize the case, failing to even identify the parties.

2b.

I am not checking whether the text matches the source, since this one fails anyway, just checking a few obvious errors.

Note 1: It's fine to have a reference to the Hopewell treaty (sourced) there, but the source for the sentence needs to appear in the body of the article too, for those who don't read the notes.

Paragraph 1 of #Major Crimes Act needs to be sourced. It's not clear that even the reference in the note would apply to that paragraph.

We need a citation for the last sentence of #Procedural history on SCOTUS cert.

I suppose #Amicus Curiae is supposed to be cited by the record as a whole. Still, some link to back it up would be nice.

3a.

See various notes in 1a and 1b.

The other GA criteria are met.

Conclusion: I'm sorry, but I have to fail this article. As a significant first step in preparing it for another try at GA, try to read the article without any outside knowledge of the case. You have worked on other legal articles - try to step back and read this one as a layman. Ask yourself if the lead alone gives you a brief outline/understanding of the case. Then read through the article without reading the notes to identify subjects or terms that need to be explained/wikilinked/expanded. Finally, read through with the notes. Each reading should give you an ever-expanding understanding of the subject, but basic comprehension should exist at each level. Once the article does this, it will (probably) pass 1a and 1b. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)