Talk:Fellows v. Blacksmith/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Please fix the disamb link to John A. Campbell and Seneca. No bad links.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Nice article, which is clearly the product of hard work. Please consider moving the Companion cases section to after the Opinion section.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "entering an "Indian sawmill and yard"" perhap change to "entering Blacksmith's "Indian sawmill and yard"" The whole idea was that instead of claiming that the Indian tribe as a whole owned and hunted around generally in an area, Blacksmith occupied and built upon this particular land in a way that is very similar to the way that settlers did.
 * You first mention the Phelps and Gorham Purchase near the end of the article in the Seneca land claims section. You should mention it near the start of the article first in the Background section. The Background section should be completely rewritten so that the reader can follow how these various treaties resulted in Mr. Blacksmith finding himself being forced out of his sawmill by Fellows.
 * You need to explain how Massachusetts got the right to dispose of Indian land located in New York State, how Fellows and Ogden paid Massachusetts for the land and what happened to that money. You should also explain what the Federal Government was doing about this land between 1802 and 1856, that is, the Federal government was not relocating Mr. Blacksmith, nor paying him to leave. The article Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy does a better job of setting this out for the reader than does the background section of this article.
 * In Blacksmith v. Tracy: "There, the New York Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus to compel the County Court" - it would help if you could identify the specific courts and could double check that this was just the county Supreme Court and not the Appellate Division, etc. Elaborate more fully on the relationship between Tracy and this case. (I assume that this case addresses Fellows throwing Blacksmith out of his sawmill, but Tracy is trying to eject the people who later bought Blacksmith's sawmill from Fellows.)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Are you using a letter to the editor rather than reported decisions as the source about the companion cases?
 * Do you have any web links to the lower court decisions that you can include in the footnotes?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The background of the case should explain where the property in dispute was located (Town of Pembroke, Genessee County) Blacksmith built a sawmill on the land. Explain how Thomas L. Ogden and Joseph Fellows claimed to have purchased it from Massachusetts. ("acquired the right of pre-emption to the lands from Massachusetts." is not sufficient.)
 * Explain how the treaty dealt separately with unimproved lands vs. improved lands such as this sawmill.
 * There is a separate "Supreme Court" in each New York County. State which county's Supreme Court heard the case: "the [X] County New York Supreme Court (the trial court) to the New York Court of Appeals, was remanded back to the [X] County Supreme Court"
 * Since you are a law student, you may have free access to Shepards and Lexis. Have you Shepardized and search for law review articles discussing this case?
 * The article (in the Prior History section) should explain that the lower court found that paying Mr. Blacksmith for his "improvement" (the sawmill) based on the joint appraisal was a "condition precedent" for Fellows getting the right to occupy the land, and that because this did not happen, Fellows could not remove Blacksmith from his land. Although the U.S. Supreme Court found a broader ground to decide the case (which ended up protecting all Indians, not just those with "improvements"), the lower court's holding is within the scope of the article.
 * 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:
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days.Racepacket (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days.Racepacket (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days.Racepacket (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly! I have moved the companion cases as you suggest. As you'll note, I've included citations to the reporter versions of the decisions. I read them myself, and indeed the content I've added cannot all be gleaned from the letter to the editor. I'd like to ask for clarification on two points. First, could you be more specific about the prose? It's hard for me to address this in the abstract; I've read over the article a couple of times but everyone's different. Second, are you asking me to duplicate the content in the "prior history" section in the "background" section or to move it there? My current rationale is that the background section is for things that apply to the dispute between the Seneca's and Ogden Co. in the broadest sense, while the prior history contains the facts of this specific dispute as determined by the lower courts. Thanks again and please advise. Savidan 05:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You commented before I finished typing in my review. You can divide it up between the Background Section and the Prior History Section, but the full story should be evident between the two, without duplication. Again, I would use the Chirsty article as a model and cover the defendant's chain of title to the land, what Mr. Blacksmith was doing at the time the dispute started, and the inactivity of the Federal Government in relocating Mr. Blacksmith. Racepacket (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the link to Campbell, this is an artifact of the template, and I'm somewhat baffled as it seems to be correct at Template:Infobox SCOTUS case/courts... I've left a note on the template talk page. Savidan 05:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and careful review. I have been able to glean much more detail from the lower court opinions and from an atlas of Genesee County, which I hope will address most of your queries. Unfortunately, I am unable to locate free online versions of the companion cases; finding state court or old federal court decisions in this manner is always tricky, old state court decisions even more so. The text of the decisions does not betray much (anything, really) about Ogden, Fellows, or Kendle, except it is clear that they are agents of the company rather than third party grantees, and the issue of defendant selection was not litigated. I could make an informed guess about the location of the (4) Supreme Court(s) at issue, but it would be only a guess. Except insofar as I have added already, there are no such geographic indicia in the opinions. As for Shepardizing, this case is cited in a little bit shy of 50 law reviews, but none of them comment on it in much detail (most, with none); I suspect the vast majority of these authors have found this decision cited in modern indigenous land rights cases and grabbed the citation without reading it. I have added a bit more about the condition precedent issue, but there really was not much here, and its quite tangential to the SCOTUS opinion. Finally, I do not think it is safe to conclude that the other case with Blacksmith in the moniker concerned the same underlying facts; while the opinion is too sparse to be sure, it is equally possible that Blacksmith was bringing (more accurately, attempting to bring) this other suit in his capacity as sachem rather than as the individual owner of a close. Please advise if these edits and replies are satisfactory. Savidan 05:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jan 15 Reading
Thank you for your work. We are very close. Please consider: Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * change heading in Prior History section from "Supreme Court" to "Supreme Court (NY lower court)"
 * " the arbitrator's award was a condition precedent" should this be payment of the appraisers' value of the improvements was a condition precedent?
 * " the appraisal was a condition precedent"->" the appraisal of the improvements was a condition precedent"
 * in note three, perhaps clarify that the Supreme Court refers to the New York S.Ct. not the U.S.S.Ct.
 * In the Soper section clarify " the complaint under the Act" because you don't refer to the 1821 statute as "the Act" earlier.
 * Text has it Soper, Fn 45 has it Saper. Is that a typo or was it in the original?
 * Infobox Campbell link was fixed.


 * Thanks again. I have taken care of these. Indeed, "Saper" is a typo (the text of the reporter decision and the Genesee County register give "Soper"). But its not my typo, it's a typo from an 19th century letter to the editor. Savidan 06:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a much better article. Passed. Congratulations Racepacket (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)