Wikipedia:Peer review/Bryan v. Itasca County/archive1

Bryan v. Itasca County
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if I can improve it to GA then FA. It is a landmark case in Native American law.

Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   02:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Short comment: Judging by the length of the scroll thumb it might be a bit short. Can it be expanded a little? By the way, I'll really appreciate if you could review manufacturing in Hong Kong. Thanks  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, and given the growth of gambling on reservations, it seems like a fairly important one too - thanks for you work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to eventually taking this to WP:GAN or WP:FAC.
 * The article is fairly short - while length is not a criterion for either GA or FA, GA requires broad coverage (see WP:WIAGA) and FA requires comprehensive coverage {see WP:WIAFA). I think this needs some more content to meet those criteria.
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding content would also help to provide context to the reader, which is always a good thing. Here are some things that seem to me to be missing or not present in enough detail:
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the Background section, but think it might be helpful to add a few sentences on the status of Native American tribes in the US and their reservations.
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also nothing on the arguments presented before the court, not even the date. Since there is a link to audio of the arguments, and I assume a transcript is available somewhere, it seems like this should be in there. I know when I listen to NPR there are often stories on arguments before the court, was there any such press coverage of this case at the time?
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article also needs to be clearer on when and where all of this took place - the final decision was in 1976, but when the did the tax incident take place and when was the Minnesota Supreme court case?
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also put details like the amount of the bill in the background, and make it clearer that the mobile home was at least physically in Itasca County.
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are things in the article that do not seem to follow the WP:MOS - it may be these follow some sort of Law article MOS, but I think all external links in the text should be converted to inline citations - for example the links to the laws in (67 Stat. 588, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. § 1360)
 * ❌ See SCOTUS for more info on MOS issues for SCOTUS cases. Cases that are cited are to be cited with either  or  which produces an external link to either Justica or Findlaw for the US Supreme Court cases.  In the refs, the Blue Book citation style is to be used.  See here for examples of Blue Book citations.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The citations also seem to me to be less than complete (though again they may fine for legal refs). For example if something is online, the publisher and access date should be given.
 * ❌ Per above. Any librarian can direct a reader to the right resource, especially at a law library.  For the SCOTUS cases, the cite (xxx U.S. xxx) will bring up the case in Google - lower courts are very seldom on-line, and if they are, it is a pay service like LoisLaw, or a subscription service like WestLaw or Lexis.  In either case, the cite will locate the article.  For the law reviews and journals, the same applies - very few are available for free.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Or why is the case name in bold in current ref 2 Bryan v. Itasca County, 228 N.W.2d 249 and is this really enough information for someone to find this information if they wanted to?
 * Template problem - I'll put it in manually. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I already mentioned news reports for the arguments, but what was the news coverage like when it was first decided? Did articles at the time foresee the long term effects or was that a more gradual development?
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another FA criterion is a professional level of English - the prose is good in most spots, but there are places that are rough - one example  Since Minnesota's interpretation meets none of these tests, Brennan stated that the court would not do so, and reversed their decision. The middle phrase does not seem to follow from the first: "Brennan stated that the court would not do so" - do what? The preceding phrase is about not meeting tests. This was unclear (although I still undertood what it was trying to mean)
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, a model article is useful for ideas and examples - there are several FAs at Featured_articles that may be good models.

Looks much better. I would rename the General information section as "Background". I would move the last ref in the section to the end of the sentence (after the period). I would add the dates of the arguments before SCOTUS and the announcement of the decision. When you take it to GAN or FAC, I would mention that this follows the Law MOS. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * - thank you for the review. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)