Talk:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk · contribs) 02:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede

 * "that holds" - surely it would be "that held", since the decision itself was in the past? I appreciate the ratio is still extant, but...
 * "an Indian child" - "the child"?
 * "did not apply" or "do not apply"? After all, we're talking about the extant law here rather than the timing of the decision.
 * What are "active remedial requirements"? Ditto "involuntary termination procedures" and "preferred placement".

More to come, just kicking things off :). Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "that holds" - "that held"
 * Done.


 * "an Indian child" - "the child"?
 * Not done. If the child does not meet the requirements for tribal citizenship (i.e., an "Indian child"), ICWA does not apply even if the mother or father are tribal members.  It's explained in more detail in the 2d paragraph of the ICWA section.


 * "did not apply" or "do not apply"? After all, we're talking about the extant law here rather than the timing of the decision.
 * Done.


 * What are "active remedial requirements"? Ditto "involuntary termination procedures" and "preferred placement".
 * Active remedial requirements: “shall satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.” 25 USC § 1912(d), quoted and cited in State Supreme Court section.
 * Involuntary termination procedures: Also in the same paragraph, the lower court looked at the termination of Brown's parental rights, finding that he had not voluntarily terminated his rights, and then went through what was required for involuntary termination.
 * Preferred placement: Ditto, except it is § 1915(a).
 * Let me know if you think it should be reworded in the lede.  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest it should be; generally-speaking it doesn't make sense to rely on definitions for a term that are provided after the use of the term itself. Ironholds (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. GregJackP   Boomer!   11:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "whose father is an enrolled member" - was? I appreciate he probably still is, but we're recounting historical fact here and it allows for consistency in case.
 * Link "Cherokee Nation"?
 * "in accordance with ICWA" - the ICWA?
 * "won his cases in trial court..." - would "won in both trial court and on appeal to the state supreme court" work better here, do you think?
 * "The case has received" - "The case received"?
 * Worth linking to the state supreme court? They usually have articles, I think.
 * United States Supreme Court - Supreme Court of the United States?
 * I'd suggest expanding on the lede to maybe elucidate why SCOTUS made the decision they did.
 * Done with the lede (I think). Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing:
 * "whose father is an enrolled member" - was? I appreciate he probably still is, but we're recounting historical fact here and it allows for consistency in case.


 * Link "Cherokee Nation"?


 * "in accordance with ICWA" - the ICWA?
 * "won his cases in trial court..." - would "won in both trial court and on appeal to the state supreme court" work better here, do you think?
 * I'm assuming that you did this, as it already reads that way. Changed "state" to "South Carolina."


 * "The case has received" - "The case received"?


 * Worth linking to the state supreme court? They usually have articles, I think.
 * ✅ for both states.


 * United States Supreme Court - Supreme Court of the United States?


 * I'd suggest expanding on the lede to maybe elucidate why SCOTUS made the decision they did.

GregJackP  Boomer!   12:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian Child Welfare Act

 * "Tribal nations had been losing as many as 25 to 35 percent of their children to removal from their homes, and consequently from their tribal culture" - how about "As many as 25 to 35 percent of Tribal children were being removed from their homes, and consequently from Tribal culture" as a simplification?
 * "In the past, Indian children had often been removed from their homes" - why 'in the past'? Are you trying to say that the choice of placement was in the past, or the frequency of removal had changed?
 * More to come. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing:
 * "Tribal nations had been losing as many as 25 to 35 percent of their children to removal from their homes, and consequently from their tribal culture" - how about "As many as 25 to 35 percent of Tribal children were being removed from their homes, and consequently from Tribal culture" as a simplification?


 * "In the past, Indian children had often been removed from their homes" - why 'in the past'? Are you trying to say that the choice of placement was in the past, or the frequency of removal had changed?
 * ✅, removed "In the past" from the sentence.

GregJackP  Boomer!   12:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay on this; all tiny laptop and no desktop makes Jack a dull boy (and Oliver little better). I hope to have some time this evening :). Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The second and third sentences still don't seem to mesh :/. How about "The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted in 1978 to protect Indian tribes and their children from separation. At the time, as many as 25 to 35 percent of Tribal children were being removed from their homes, and consequently from Tribal culture. They were frequently placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes."? Noting that they were placed in native american homes/schools doesn't seem to add much (it's sort of secondary to the point here, which is familial and cultural separation and dilution).
 * " Congress determined that if Indian children continued to be removed from Indian homes at this rate, tribal survival would be threatened. Congress " - two uses of Congress. Have you considered smushing the sentences together?
 * "for parents to waive " - for the birth parents, maybe? To distinguish the two pairs.
 * The clauses in "The ICWA provides that to relinquish parental rights...." - I might split that out into an indented list.
 * " by fraud or duress" - I might change this to "through fraud or under duress"
 * What does "involuntary termination" refer to?
 * Past the footnote starting "Since..." there don't appear to be any citations for that sentence. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing:
 * The second and third sentences still don't seem to mesh :/. How about "The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted in 1978 to protect Indian tribes and their children from separation. At the time, as many as 25 to 35 percent of Tribal children were being removed from their homes, and consequently from Tribal culture. They were frequently placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes."? Noting that they were placed in native american homes/schools doesn't seem to add much (it's sort of secondary to the point here, which is familial and cultural separation and dilution).
 * Actually, the placement of Indian children in American Indian Boarding Schools was designed to destroy the culture of the tribes by taking the child, "Kill the Indian in him and save the man." and "assimilation through total immersion." (Quotes are from Pratt, the War Dept. head of the Indian school program).  The schools punished Indian children for speaking their own language, following their own religious beliefs, following tribal customs, etc.  Both were designed to remove tribal children from tribal culture.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If intent to destroy the identity can be confirmed, that's something that should probably be included in the article as additional context. Ironholds (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It can be confirmed, it is something that is widely known and reported in numerous RS - it may take a while for me to actually look though - I have a major IRL project I have to get done, so it may take a week or so.  GregJackP   Boomer!   06:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " Congress determined that if Indian children continued to be removed from Indian homes at this rate, tribal survival would be threatened. Congress " - two uses of Congress. Have you considered smushing the sentences together?
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "for parents to waive " - for the birth parents, maybe? To distinguish the two pairs.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   16:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The clauses in "The ICWA provides that to relinquish parental rights...." - I might split that out into an indented list.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   16:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " by fraud or duress" - I might change this to "through fraud or under duress"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   16:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What does "involuntary termination" refer to?
 * ✅. Footnoted the explanation.   GregJackP   Boomer!   16:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Past the footnote starting "Since..." there don't appear to be any citations for that sentence.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me know what else I need to work on. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Case history

 * Is "case history" the correct term? I''d assume case or litigation history to refer to the process of litigation (District Court said mayo is terrible, Circuit said it's fine, and SCOTUS took the appropriate view and banned not only mayo but red licorice) rather than the background facts.
 * The first sentence has two "and"s (repetition, one point!) Would removing the final clause work? It doesn't seem to add any context.
 * "On learning Maldonado was pregnant" - "On learning that Maldonado was pregnant"
 * The sentence starting "Though a common misconception" doesn't have an inline citation.
 * "A few months prior to the baby's birth, she" - suggest "birth, Maldonado" - on first reading I thought you were continuing the example mentioned above
 * "requires that" - "required that", in keeping with the overall tenses.
 * " Although Oklahoma law requires that an Indian tribe be notified, Maldonado's attorney misspelled Brown's name and provided an incorrect date of birth, so the tribe was not put on notice of the proposed adoption" - feels a bit clumsy. Suggest " Although Oklahoma law requires that an Indian tribe be informed if an Indian child is to be adopted, Maldonado's attorney misspelled Brown's name and provided an incorrect date of birth. As a result, the tribe was not notified about the proposed adoption." (feel free to tweak, since it probably needs work too).
 * "instead of Native American, the" - "rather than Native American, the", but it's a personal choice.
 * "days from deployment" - "days before deployment"
 * "believing that he was relinquishing rights to Maldonado" takes a couple of passes; I'm drawing a blank, but can you think of any other ways to say "relinquishing his parental rights [in relation to the child] [to Maldonado, rather than an adopting couple]"?
 * "Brown, once he realized what he was signing, immediately tried to retrieve the document" - presumably he wasn't in the process of signing it if he had to actively work to retrieve it ;). Suggest "Brown, once he realized what he had signed, immediately tried to retrieve the document"
 * "and failing that" - do you mean "after that failed"? I usually see "failing that" used slightly differently.
 * "Brown had obtained" - "Brown obtained"? Or is the problem that it was at some (non-specified) point within that 7-day period? Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing (these may take awhile due to IRL commitments):
 * Is "case history" the correct term? I'd assume case or litigation history to refer to the process of litigation (District Court said mayo is terrible, Circuit said it's fine, and SCOTUS took the appropriate view and banned not only mayo but red licorice) rather than the background facts.
 * It has been widely used, but I'm not tied to it. I thought it looked better than fact statement.  GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first sentence has two "and"s (repetition, one point!) Would removing the final clause work? It doesn't seem to add any context.
 * Removed first "and" - replaced with comma.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "On learning Maldonado was pregnant" - "On learning that Maldonado was pregnant"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence starting "Though a common misconception" doesn't have an inline citation.
 * I'll get a ref or remove.  GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, removed sentence. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "A few months prior to the baby's birth, she" - suggest "birth, Maldonado" - on first reading I thought you were continuing the example mentioned above
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "requires that" - "required that", in keeping with the overall tenses.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " Although Oklahoma law requires that an Indian tribe be notified, Maldonado's attorney misspelled Brown's name and provided an incorrect date of birth, so the tribe was not put on notice of the proposed adoption" - feels a bit clumsy. Suggest " Although Oklahoma law requires that an Indian tribe be informed if an Indian child is to be adopted, Maldonado's attorney misspelled Brown's name and provided an incorrect date of birth. As a result, the tribe was not notified about the proposed adoption." (feel free to tweak, since it probably needs work too).
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "instead of Native American, the" - "rather than Native American, the", but it's a personal choice.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "days from deployment" - "days before deployment"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   07:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "believing that he was relinquishing rights to Maldonado" takes a couple of passes; I'm drawing a blank, but can you think of any other ways to say "relinquishing his parental rights [in relation to the child] [to Maldonado, rather than an adopting couple]"?
 * "Brown, once he realized what he was signing, immediately tried to retrieve the document" - presumably he wasn't in the process of signing it if he had to actively work to retrieve it ;). Suggest "Brown, once he realized what he had signed, immediately tried to retrieve the document"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "and failing that" - do you mean "after that failed"? I usually see "failing that" used slightly differently.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Brown had obtained" - "Brown obtained"? Or is the problem that it was at some (non-specified) point within that 7-day period?
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Trial court

 * "Brown contested the adoption, and the Cherokee Nation intervened in the case" - presumably intervening on his side? I'd specify that. And, define intervention? Submitted an amicus?
 * " South Carolina law terminates a father's parental rights if he did not provide pre-birth support and does not become" - mix of tenses here is understandable, but it's inconsistent with the tense of the rest of the article. "Under South Carolina law, a father's parental rights were terminated if he did not provide pre-birth support and become"
 * The list in this section might work better as a formal list, rather than as prose.
 * I'd merge the sentence starting "The court then ordered..." with the sentence following it.
 * "The Capiobanos appealed the case to the Supreme..."
 * More later! Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing:
 * "Brown contested the adoption, and the Cherokee Nation intervened in the case" - presumably intervening on his side? I'd specify that. And, define intervention? Submitted an amicus?
 * ✅. No, the CN intervened as a party in their own right. Clarified. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " South Carolina law terminates a father's parental rights if he did not provide pre-birth support and does not become" - mix of tenses here is understandable, but it's inconsistent with the tense of the rest of the article. "Under South Carolina law, a father's parental rights were terminated if he did not provide pre-birth support and become"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The list in this section might work better as a formal list, rather than as prose.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd merge the sentence starting "The court then ordered..." with the sentence following it.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "The Capiobanos appealed the case to the Supreme..."
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

State supreme court

 * The naming convention here (that is, the convention by which the judges are named) - in the UK we'd say Bloggs J or Bloggs CJ, and I know I've seen SCOTUS judgments discussed with contractions. Is there a standard convention for how US judicial names are displayed? If not, what do you think of simply using last names (and linking to articles if available)? The full names of every judge are somewhat disruptive to my eye.
 * "decided three issues" - I'd say "covered" or "discussed" maybe, just as a way of setting up the actual explanation of the decision.
 * "She noted that at this point, the case was properly before the court, and proceeded to address the second issue." has no citation.
 * "but have actively sought" - "had actively sought"
 * "quoting Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield" - it's unclear whether this is quoted in the statement preceeding "quoting.." or the one immediately after it. If the one before, I'd suggest moving "quoting.." to the beginning of the sentence. If after, I'd suggest a full stop before it.
 * "preserves her tribal" - "preserved"
 * "Charleston County Family Court returning the Indian child to her father" - "in returning the Indian child to her father"

Addressing:
 * The naming convention here (that is, the convention by which the judges are named) - in the UK we'd say Bloggs J or Bloggs CJ, and I know I've seen SCOTUS judgments discussed with contractions. Is there a standard convention for how US judicial names are displayed? If not, what do you think of simply using last names (and linking to articles if available)? The full names of every judge are somewhat disruptive to my eye.
 * I've wikilinked the justices (redlink for Hearn). Typically we would list the full name the first time the justice is mentioned, then go to the last name only.  I'm open to rephrasing this part.   GregJackP   Boomer!   03:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "decided three issues" - I'd say "covered" or "discussed" maybe, just as a way of setting up the actual explanation of the decision.
 * ❌ - the actual descision was on these three issues, which were the legal points in contention.  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "She noted that at this point, the case was properly before the court, and proceeded to address the second issue." has no citation.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   03:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "but have actively sought" - "had actively sought"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   03:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "quoting Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield" - it's unclear whether this is quoted in the statement preceeding "quoting.." or the one immediately after it. If the one before, I'd suggest moving "quoting.." to the beginning of the sentence. If after, I'd suggest a full stop before it.
 * ✅, moved to beginning of the sentence. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "preserves her tribal" - "preserved"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   03:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Charleston County Family Court returning the Indian child to her father" - "in returning the Indian child to her father"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   03:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dissent

 * " indicated that he believed that the" - "that". How about "Kittredge argued that the state standards for best interest of the child should trump those of the ICWA, and concluded that the trial court judge erred in her findings of fact"
 * "He noted that Brown had an income of approximately $23,000 in 2010.[60] He noted that Brown paid nothing to assist with pre-birth expenses, and had indicated that he did not intend to do so." - "He noted that Brown had an income of approximately $23,000 in 2010, had paid nothing to assist with pre-birth expenses, and had indicated that he did not intend to do so."
 * "He then went through an evaluation of the ICWA, noting that South Carolina law does not allow a father in Brown's position to contest an adoption.[64] He noted that Brown acknowledged paternity and that a DNA test conclusively proved that Brown was the biological father" - "Kittredge then evaluated the ICWA, noting that South Carolina law did not allow a father in Brown's position to contest an adoption. Brown acknowledged paternity, and a DNA test conclusively proved that he was the biological father."
 * " However, Kittredge then stated that even though the ICWA applied, Congress did not intend the ICWA to replace state law with regard to a child's best interests." - kill "Kittredge then stated that"
 * " and would have reversed the decision of the trial court." - no citation.

Addressing:
 * " indicated that he believed that the" - "that". How about "Kittredge argued that the state standards for best interest of the child should trump those of the ICWA, and concluded that the trial court judge erred in her findings of fact"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "He noted that Brown had an income of approximately $23,000 in 2010.[60] He noted that Brown paid nothing to assist with pre-birth expenses, and had indicated that he did not intend to do so." - "He noted that Brown had an income of approximately $23,000 in 2010, had paid nothing to assist with pre-birth expenses, and had indicated that he did not intend to do so."
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "He then went through an evaluation of the ICWA, noting that South Carolina law does not allow a father in Brown's position to contest an adoption.[64] He noted that Brown acknowledged paternity and that a DNA test conclusively proved that Brown was the biological father" - "Kittredge then evaluated the ICWA, noting that South Carolina law did not allow a father in Brown's position to contest an adoption. Brown acknowledged paternity, and a DNA test conclusively proved that he was the biological father."
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " However, Kittredge then stated that even though the ICWA applied, Congress did not intend the ICWA to replace state law with regard to a child's best interests." - kill "Kittredge then stated that"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " and would have reversed the decision of the trial court." - no citation.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court

 * "amici curiae briefs to" - "amici curiae briefs with"
 * "This included briefing by two former U.S. Solicitors General: Paul Clement on behalf of the guardian ad litem, and Greg Garre on behalf of the birth mother." - this is confusing. Do you mean the seven amicus briefs included two briefs from Solicitors General, or some of them were informed by briefings from two former...?
 * "California State Association of Counties" feels like it could use a "the" before it.
 * "granted cert" - expand to certiorati (contractions like that are somewhat 'inside baseball')
 * More on the way. Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "court decided assorted motions by amici for leave to participate in oral argument" - can we simplify the sentence? "court decided to allow those who had submitted amicius briefs to participate in the oral arguments, and..."?
 * "The issue presented to the court was" - there are two issues.
 * What are "merit briefs"?
 * "were filed to date" - were filed before arguments started? Were any filed afterwards? If so, call it out more explicitly ("to date" is a subjective temporal thing), if not, it seems extraneous.
 * " § 1912(f), § 1912(d), and § 1915(a)." - what do these actually mean? That is, what do the provisions say?
 * "Thomas concurs with the majority." - concurred
 * "stated since" - "stated that since"
 * "that the Court's decision may be too broad" - "the Court's decision may be too broad"
 * " preferential placement order" isn't explained or defined before it's mentioned here.
 * " that there is no reason" - " that there was no reason"
 * " ignores the primary purpose of the ICWA in its interpretation of § 1915(a), and notes that there is" - ignored, noted, was
 * "mandates the return" - mandated

Addressing:
 * "amici curiae briefs to" - "amici curiae briefs with"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "This included briefing by two former U.S. Solicitors General: Paul Clement on behalf of the guardian ad litem, and Greg Garre on behalf of the birth mother." - this is confusing. Do you mean the seven amicus briefs included two briefs from Solicitors General, or some of them were informed by briefings from two former...?
 * ✅, clarified. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "California State Association of Counties" feels like it could use a "the" before it.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "granted cert" - expand to certiorati (contractions like that are somewhat 'inside baseball')
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "court decided assorted motions by amici for leave to participate in oral argument" - can we simplify the sentence? "court decided to allow those who had submitted amicius briefs to participate in the oral arguments, and..."?
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   20:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The issue presented to the court was" - there are two issues.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   20:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What are "merit briefs"?
 * ✅, wikilinked. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "were filed to date" - were filed before arguments started? Were any filed afterwards? If so, call it out more explicitly ("to date" is a subjective temporal thing), if not, it seems extraneous.
 * ✅, removed. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " § 1912(f), § 1912(d), and § 1915(a)." - what do these actually mean? That is, what do the provisions say?
 * ✅, added to footnote.  GregJackP   Boomer!   05:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Thomas concurs with the majority." - concurred
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   20:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "stated since" - "stated that since"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   20:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "that the Court's decision may be too broad" - "the Court's decision may be too broad"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " preferential placement order" isn't explained or defined before it's mentioned here.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " that there is no reason" - " that there was no reason"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   20:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * " ignores the primary purpose of the ICWA in its interpretation of § 1915(a), and notes that there is" - ignored, noted, was
 * ✅, sort of - changed "ignores", did not see "notes" or "is" in the section.  GregJackP &

nbsp; Boomer!  05:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - a brand new user came in, deleted about 17K and rewrote in POV fashion. Reverted to good copy and fixed.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "mandates the return" - mandated
 * ✅  GregJackP   Boomer!   05:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage

 * "Coverage in the mainstream media has been extensive" - "Coverage in the mainstream media was extensive"
 * "televisions" - "television"
 * "on his television show that aired" - "on his television show in an episode that aired"
 * "some Indian media " - Indian media what? Figures, outlets...?
 * "The immediate response of most media states" is confusing. "After the Supreme Court decision, most media outlets stated.."
 * "has also received a great" - "also received a great"
 * "Munday, who runs a marketing firm in Charleston, South Carolina, is responsible for making the case well known," - says one newspaper story? And, that should be a full stop rather than a comma.
 * "point out the irony in the campaign" - "pointed out"
 * "; they point to an" - ", indicating an"

Addressing:
 * "Coverage in the mainstream media has been extensive" - "Coverage in the mainstream media was extensive"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "televisions" - "television"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "on his television show that aired" - "on his television show in an episode that aired"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "some Indian media " - Indian media what? Figures, outlets...?
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The immediate response of most media states" is confusing. "After the Supreme Court decision, most media outlets stated.."
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "has also received a great" - "also received a great"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Munday, who runs a marketing firm in Charleston, South Carolina, is responsible for making the case well known," - says one newspaper story? And, that should be a full stop rather than a comma.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "point out the irony in the campaign" - "pointed out"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "; they point to an" - ", indicating an"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal developments

 * Large paragraph; suggest splitting in half
 * "have been" - "had been"
 * "out of state" twice in two sentences. Suggest cutting the second one.
 * That seems to be about it! Ironholds (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Addressing:
 * Large paragraph; suggest splitting in half
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "have been" - "had been"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "out of state" twice in two sentences. Suggest cutting the second one.
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   05:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if you have anything else. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Final comments
Addressing:
 * Lede "is a decision" - "was a decision"
 * Lede "requirements to make extra efforts" - "requirement to make extra efforts"
 * Lede "do not apply when" - "does not apply when"
 * Lede " the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, holding that a non-custodial father did not have rights under the ICWA and sending" - " the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, holding that a non-custodial father did not have rights under the ICWA, and sent"
 * Lede "adoption of the child to the adoptive couple" - "transfer of the child to the adopting couple"
 * Lede "But on August 30. 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the girl would not immediately be transferred from the custody of her biological father to the South Carolina couple who adopted her. " - but this was prohibited by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on August 30."
 * Indian Child Welfare Act "Indian children had often been forcibly removed from their homes" - "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes"
 * More to come :). Ironholds (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ICWA " Indian children were often forcibly removed" "The children were often removed forcibly"
 * I think that might be pretty much it, although is there a chance we could get a few more images? Ironholds (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lede "is a decision" - "was a decision"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lede "requirements to make extra efforts" - "requirement to make extra efforts"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lede "do not apply when" - "does not apply when"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lede " the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, holding that a non-custodial father did not have rights under the ICWA and sending" - " the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, holding that a non-custodial father did not have rights under the ICWA, and sent"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lede "adoption of the child to the adoptive couple" - "transfer of the child to the adopting couple"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lede "But on August 30. 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the girl would not immediately be transferred from the custody of her biological father to the South Carolina couple who adopted her. " - but this was prohibited by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on August 30."
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Indian Child Welfare Act "Indian children had often been forcibly removed from their homes" - "Indian children were often forcibly removed from their homes"
 * ✅ GregJackP   Boomer!   21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ICWA " Indian children were often forcibly removed" "The children were often removed forcibly"
 * ❌ - I think it is important to leave Indian children in the sentence, as it emphasizes the issue.  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue is mentioned in the sentence immediately preceding that one - "the" isn't much of a change. What it does do is prevents repetition (read that sentence and the sentence before it in sequence and you'll see what I mean). Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, changed to "Tribal children."  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that might be pretty much it, although is there a chance we could get a few more images?
 * OK, I'll see what I can find. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome; poke me if/when you have any luck. Ironholds (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * - I added three images. An image of children taken to an Indian boarding school, the seal of the Cherokee Nation, and the SC S.Ct. building.  I looked for some photos of the adults involved, but none were appropriately licensed.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds awesome :). Lemme go fix up some templates, aaaand... Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)