Template:Did you know nominations/Antoine v. Washington
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Antoine v. Washington
[edit]- ... that Antoine v. Washington was a United States Supreme Court case that allowed Native Americans to hunt and fish outside of their reservation without state interference?
Created by GregJackP (talk). Self nominated at 06:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC).
I cannot see a reviw by the nominator and I believe he has more than five previous DYKs?- The article is new and long enough. The sources are mostly offline, allthough I have consulted the case paper here, so I cannot check for copyvio/close paraphrasing and will have to AGF.
- The paragraphs in section "Arguments" are unsourced, but for one source that does not directly back up the claims in the section.
- As for the hook; it's not easy to make complicated law into a short fact hook. The sentence I found that is closest to backing up the hook is "Brennan then noted that even though the statute did not explicitly state it reserved hunting and fishing rights for the Indians, it must be construed in that manner since the agreement stated that the rights "shall not be taken away or in anywise abridged." I think it might be helpful if article writer provided an online citation from the relevant part of "Young".
- I had to consult the infobox to find the vote tally in the case; that's something I would have expected to find in the body of the article; allthough I am not familiar with the practice for writing about US supreme court cases.
- Otherwise, the article is neat, and allthough I can't assess whether all the judicial details are correctly presented, the article appears logical and consistent.
- Regards, Iselilja (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Addressing:
- Reviewed John Baker White (West Virginia politician).
- Added sources for the Argument section.
- Young is available on HeinOnLine, search terms Author (Rowland Young), Title (Supreme Court Report). The relevant section title in the article is "Indian Hunting Rights Guaranteed in 1891 Treaty."
- Typically the vote tally will only be in the text if it is relevant and/or commented on extensively by reliable sources. It was neither in this case.
- You could ask at WP:LAW or WP:SCOTUS if you want someone to go over the legal issues, but I'm confident that they are correct. Most of the articles I write (all 3 FAs and most of the GAs) are in this area. GregJackP Boomer! 05:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The point of asking for a Young citation was to have it included in the reference, so it would be easily accessible for readers as it relates to the hook. (I didn't manage to access the online version myself). But I guess we can do without that. My other concern about the hook is that it might appear to present the ruling to be more general than it is; as I understand it relates to one confedrate tribes who are allowed to hunt at a specific area (Old North Half) that were previously part of the reservation and later ceded. So, in this way I find the hook somewhat "simplifying" the facts and not quite back up by a clear cited sentence in the article, but I let it pass. - I pointed out my problems about evaluation the finer judicial points in order to make it clear to the promoters that I have not the competence to "verify" that the article is in all aspects are accurate; not because I had any particular concerns; the article looks logical and consistent. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
