Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing to re-submit it for FA status.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

Quite good, here are the first half of my comments:

Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing:

Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Done. Footnoted that the state court used state clear and convincing evidence standard rather than federal beyond a reasonable doubt standard. GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 00:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.
Resuming with one more SC supreme court argument
  • Was there oral argument in the state supreme court? The date at least should be mentioned if so.
SCOTUS
  • "Seven entities filed amici curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in support of hearing the case. This included amicus briefs by two former" Why is it amici for the seven briefs filed by the entities, but not the two briefs? Plural either way.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicization of certiorari seems inconsistent.
  • Consider dropping the dates of service of the exSG's to a footnote or at least deleting the repetitions of the name of the office.
Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.
  • I wonder if it is really necessary to identify counsel as attorneys. It is clear from context. (used twice). Also, I would state their qualifications in the past tense to eliminate the need for updating.
  • "Guardian ad litem" I think ad litem should be italicized. As you have not previously mentioned this individual's participation, I suggest a link or an explanation someplace would be in order. Did the GAL make recommendations in the lower courts? Did the GAL file a brief on the merits?
  • Can anything be said about the oral arguments?
  • "He also noted that under South Carolina law, it is undisputed that Brown would not be able to object to the adoption." I'm thinking it should be "would not have been able to object", but that makes the sentence so convoluted, you might want to rewrite. You also might want to make it clearer that this was in the absence of the ICWA.
  • Consider the use of non-breaking spaces between the section sign and the number.
  • "Thomas continued, to state that there was no constitutional authority for Congress to enact the ICWA." There's an issue with the start of this sentence. Perhaps start "Thomas contended that there was no …"
  • "Justice Stephen Breyer also issued a very short concurring opinion. " Ambiguity, possible implication that Thomas's was also very short.
  • The section on subsequent developments might need better organization.

That's all I've got. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Addressing:

Lede
  • If possible, avoid the repetition of "do not apply", which is in both of the initial sentences. (note "does not apply" in final sentence of lede paragraph)
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state court of South Carolina" I imagine the remand was to the state supreme court. In practice, they will remand further, so I suggest changing to "South Carolina courts".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", though further appeals by her biological father were said to be likely. Brown later dropped his appeals." Since this adds up to nothing, perhaps it is better deleted?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Weren't the abuses such as orphanages and so forth somewhat earlier than 1978?
 Done, added "Historically," to Indian children removal to clarify. The removal to boarding schools started in the 1880s, forced adoptions came later. GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question capitalization of "Tribal", which seems inconsistent in any case "tribal court".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes and frequently placed" Probably can do without the "frequently" as it is covered under "often".
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider refocusing this section slightly, that is, beginning with the problem (Indian adoption by non-tribe members) and then the solution (the 1978 act). Just a thought.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 21:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of one other child." Is "other" really necessary? Surely you can signal to the reader this is not the baby girl more adeptly.
 Done, removed reference to other child. GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cherokee Nation intervened as a party in their own right" I think "its" for "their" in American English.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that in the trial court the adoptive parents failed to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Earlier you had stated that the standard under the ICWA was beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Done. Footnoted that the state court used state clear and convincing evidence standard rather than federal beyond a reasonable doubt standard. GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The court then ordered the Capobiancos to turn over the child,[36] which was accomplished on December 31, 2011" Perhaps phrase it in an active tone. They turned over the child to Brown, or some such.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
State Supreme Court
  • You had not previously mentioned the removal of the child from Oklahoma as being an issue. I think you need to set this up better by mentioning that children generally may not be placed interstate except under the terms of the interstate compact then in force.
  • "clear and convincing evidence" linked, but not at first usage.
  • If the point of the second sentence of the dissent is to show Brown could not support the child, I think you need to make this plainer. Also, I feel that both parts of the State Supreme Court section could benefit from cutting. It's an overruled decision.
  • I wonder if it is really necessary to identify counsel as attorneys. It is clear from context. (used twice). Also, I would state their qualifications in the past tense to eliminate the need for updating.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming with one more SC supreme court argument
  • Was there oral argument in the state supreme court? The date at least should be mentioned if so.
SCOTUS
  • "Seven entities filed amici curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in support of hearing the case. This included amicus briefs by two former" Why is it amici for the seven briefs filed by the entities, but not the two briefs? Plural either way.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicization of certiorari seems inconsistent.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider dropping the dates of service of the exSG's to a footnote or at least deleting the repetitions of the name of the office.
 Done. Footnoted. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guardian ad litem" I think ad litem should be italicized. As you have not previously mentioned this individual's participation, I suggest a link or an explanation someplace would be in order. Did the GAL make recommendations in the lower courts? Did the GAL file a brief on the merits?
I italicized ad litem. I'll do either a link or FN or both later. I don't know what was done at the trial court, the records are sealed, but I'll see what I can find. The GAL did file a merit brief. GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said about the oral arguments?
  • "He also noted that under South Carolina law, it is undisputed that Brown would not be able to object to the adoption." I'm thinking it should be "would not have been able to object", but that makes the sentence so convoluted, you might want to rewrite. You also might want to make it clearer that this was in the absence of the ICWA.
The exact language Alito used was:

"It is undisputed that, had Baby Girl not been 3/256 Cherokee, Biological Father would have had no right to object to her adoption under South Carolina law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 49; 398 S.C., at 644, n. 19, 731 S.E.2d, at 560, n. 19 (“Under state law, [Biological] Father's consent to the adoption would not have been required”). The South Carolina Supreme Court held, however, that Biological Father is a “parent” under the ICWA and that two statutory provisions—namely, § 1912(f) and § 1912(d)—bar the termination of his parental rights. In this Court, Adoptive Couple contends that Biological Father is not a “parent” and that § 1912(f) and *2560 § 1912(d) are inapplicable. We need not—and therefore do not—decide whether Biological Father is a “parent.” See § 1903(9) (defining “parent”).4 Rather, assuming for the sake of argument that he is a “parent,” we hold that neither § 1912(f) nor § 1912(d) bars the termination of his parental rights." Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552, 2559-60, 186 L. Ed. 2d 729 (U.S.S.C. 2013)

With "undisputed" being the language used in the opinion, I thought that we should use it in the article, but I'm open to change it, just let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works better if you lead off with the phrase, as in "it is undisputed that under South Carolina law …"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the use of non-breaking spaces between the section sign and the number.
OK. I've never used those. What's the code? GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  You'll have to check the edit window and see what's inside the nowiki tags on this edit, for some reason the code won't display even inside of nowiki tags. If you have "Wiki markup" displayed below the edit window, you'll see it there. Check the WP:NBSP for usage.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas continued, to state that there was no constitutional authority for Congress to enact the ICWA." There's an issue with the start of this sentence. Perhaps start "Thomas contended that there was no …"
 Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Justice Stephen Breyer also issued a very short concurring opinion. " Ambiguity, possible implication that Thomas's was also very short.
  • The section on subsequent developments might need better organization.

Comments by Josve05a

[edit]
 Done, fixed. GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Adoptive_Couple_v._Baby_Girl/archive1&oldid=587773541"