Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fellows v. Blacksmith/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012.

Fellows v. Blacksmith

 * Nominator(s): Savidan 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very good article about an obscure, yet important case. Decided the day before Dred Scott, it represents the first Native American land rights victory in the U.S. Supreme Court (possibly the first judgment in favor of a Native American from that court in any area of law). It has been a good article for over a year. The first nomination resulted in substantial improvement to the article, although no reviewers ended up supporting or opposing the article. Savidan 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Johnbod
 * Preliminary comments We must surely have some images of Native Americans of about the right sort at about the right time, as well or instead of all those be-whiskered lawyers? Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An image of Ely Parker is already included. I am somewhat open to the inclusion of others, with this caveat: Not just any Native American from the time period will do. Anyone other than a Seneca, and probably anyone other than a Tonawanda Seneca, would push the bounds of relevance. Savidan 06:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this is pretty indigestible, even by the standards of law case articles. I think I would need a fair number of changes to make it more accessible by explaining the concepts before supporting. The first two sentences of the lead get the article off to a daunting start, and the lead does not contain any summary of the facts of the case, which it should, and which would give the lay reader something easier to hold on to. Many brief explanations in simpler terms should be added to the existing text, which gives the impression of covering the subject well, not that I'm in a position to judge.
 * I have reworked the intro to add the facts more prominently. I am willing to work further with you on this concern, but you will have to be more specific. I am absolutely open to using the simplest possible terms that can be used without sacrificing meaning. I am also possibly willing to add more context and explanation, as long as the flow of the article is not broken by discussing general topics. To use the example of the first sentence, of which you have complained, a reader who wants to know more about the Supreme Court of the United States or Native Americans in the United States generally will probably have to click those links. I am not willing to add explanation along the lines of: "The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, located in Washington, D.C." or "Native Americans are the descendants of the indigenous population of the United States prior to European colonization." Savidan 19:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have to be more specific, really. I could just walk away and leave it, which is what I probably will do. It is a pervasive problem, though the changes to the first para show you know what to do.  Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been more specific. If you want me to understand and address your concern, you will have to be more specific. Savidan 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is it always a Supreme Court "opinion" here? Isn't it a decision or judgment?
 * The opinion is the text written by the court. The decision or judgment is just the disposition, i.e. "judgment for the plaintiff" or "affirmed." Savidan 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the talk of "Marshall Court" etc, with a link to the bio of the Chief Justice, normal? It would seem better to expand at least the first mentions.
 * If there were an article for Marshall Court, that would be better, but there is not. That section of his article is the best we can do now. Since this article is a case decided by the Taney Court, and there is already substantial summary of the Marshall Court's relevant decisions in the background sections (and a {main} link to Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court), I am hesitant to add more. If you can be more specific about what you would like to see, perhaps it can be done. Savidan 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh! Is there actually any reason not to say "the Supreme Court under Chief Justice whatever Marshall's name was"? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Only word economy. It's not that uncommon of an expression, much like "Obama Administration." See Warren Court or Roberts Court, for example. The fact that there is no a "Marshall Court" article really can be attributed the presentism bias of Wikipedia more than anything else, as it is probably the period of the Court most referred to in this manner. "Marshall Court" on Google Scholar. I'm fairly certain this expression is understandable to non-lawyers, as it is a common staple of general interest journalism about the Court. "Roberts Court" on Google News.Savidan 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bet on that, certainly outside the US. It's not implausible that there should be a "Marshall Court", given the various legal meanings of the word. The meaning wasn't immediately clear to me when first reading it. Too much concern for "word economy" may lie behind the main issue with this article. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have created an article at Marshall Court. While it is not possible for the meaning of every phrase to be "immediately clear" to every reader, I hope the bluelink will resolve your concern about this particular phrase in an article about U.S. legal history. Word economy is not just a matter of saving space. Few articles on any topics could be expected to remain concise and keep their flow if not permitted to use proper nouns that are extremely well-known in their subject areas. The more time an article spends clearing its throat, the lower the proportion of actual content. Savidan 17:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Review Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.