Talk:Bryan v. Itasca County/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have completed my review. I made several revisions to improve the writing, and in a couple places I have made a few small changes to words and phrases that were perhaps not neutral. This is a decent article which still has some issues that need to be fixed. I believe this can be done if the editors want to work on it, so I will hold this article for up to a week to allow time for improvements. Aaron north (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been done for the week since the review, so I am failing the article today. Aaron north (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * idiom in this sentence that should probably be changed: ("This case has become a landmark case that set the stage for Indian gaming on reservations and altered the economic status of almost every Indian tribe.")
 * The following sentence looks like it has an error somewhere ("Congress can authorize the states to have some control, and Minnesota is a Public Law 280 state, where Congress has granted the state has criminal and some civil jurisdiction on tribal land and reservations.") I normally prefer to correct minor errors myself, but in this case I am not certain precisely what this sentence was supposed to say, so I'd prefer to leave it to the editors.
 * This seems a bit too informal for an encyclopedia entry on a supreme court decision. ("Seck did not know much about Indian law...")
 * This: ("This ruling in a challenge to a tax bill of $147.95 had the effect of enabling Indian tribes to earn over $200 billion in gaming revenue."), looks like a literary flourish that should not be in an encyclopedic entry. I would be fine with the sentence if the bolded words were removed, but the inclusion of those words seem to imply that the Indian gaming industry would not have occurred without a tiny property tax bill. This case asked a very basic question that likely would have come up later, and the supreme court knew the stakes were higher than about $150.
 * Given that the Bryan case was mentioned as leading to California v Cabazon Band of Mission Indians a couple sentences ago, this looks redundant and unnecessary: ("... a direct result but unintended consequence of the Bryan decision.")
 * This sentence looks incomplete: ("It has been opined by a number of legal scholars that tribes would not be subject to state labor laws.") If they are currently subject to state labor laws, then this needs to be rephrased from a "fact" to a theory that this ruling may occur if state labor laws are challenged. The following sentence on traffic laws has a simlar problem.
 * Is this sentence relevant for this article? ("Finally, Bryan is extensively discussed in both major legal textbooks on Native American law, along with numerous other high school and college texts.") I don't really see this as a "development", many landmark cases are discussed in legal textbooks.

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This sentence ("In that case, the court noted that California not only allowed gaming, but promoted their own state lottery, therefore the prohibition against gaming were regulatory in nature, not criminal, and notwithstanding the fact that the games were open to non-Indians as well as Indians.") is rather long, including 4 commas without any sort of list. It can probably be improved by breaking this up into a couple shorter sentences.