Wikipedia:Peer review/United States v. Lara/archive1

===United States v. Lara=== This peer review discussion has been closed. This article has just completed a good article review and I would like to see what needs to be done to take it to the next level.

Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/United States v. Lara/archive1.

Finetooth comments This is an interesting and generally well-done article. The prose needs work to improve it to professional quality, and images would add interest. Here are my suggestions, mostly related to specific prose and style issues.

- I left "Opinion of the Court" as is, per WP:SCOTUS. GregJackP (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) - added to "Opinion of the Court" section. The intro is done by a template. GregJackP (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The heads and subheads take a capital letter on the first word but lower-case letters on the subsequent words unless they are proper nouns. Thus "Arrest and Trial" should be "Arrest and trial", and so on. MOS:HEAD has details.
 * Maybe I am missing it, but I don't see the date of the Supreme Court ruling anywhere except the lead. If it's not in the main text, it needs to be added at the first opportunity, probably in the "Opinion of the Court" section.

Lead GregJackP (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "which held that both the United States and an Indian tribe could" - I recommend changing "an Indian tribe" to "a Native American (Indian) tribe" to make clear that these are not people from India.

Arrest and trial - changed limited in your suggestion to territorial as it more correctly describes tribal sovereignty.GregJackP (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) - can you explain the reasoning here? Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "arrested while on the Spirit Lake Reservation, which is the reservation for the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe" - To avoid repeating "reservation" perhaps "arrested while on the Spirit Lake Reservation, over which the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe has limited sovereignty"?
 * Add the geographic location of the Spirit Lake Reservation and its geographic relationship to the location of the Turtle Mountain Band's reservation (if there is one)?
 * Sure. I wasn't sure at first whether the Spirit Lake Reservation was in North Dakota or maybe elsewhere since the text didn't make the location utterly clear. I couldn't be sure whether or not members of the Turtle Mountain Band typically lived on the Spirit Lake Reservation or elsewhere. If not, then how far away? This seemed relevant to me especially later in the article when I learned that Lara had married someone from the reservation; if he can't live there anymore, his wife either has to move off the reservation or stay there without him. This seemed to me to be an interesting personal and social consequence of the court ruling. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it wasn't the Supreme Court ruling that gave him the boot, I realized after writing my note above. Still, adding the location seems like a good idea to me. Finetooth (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They're about 90 miles apart. The Turtle Mountain rez in on the US/Canada border, and the Spirit Lake rez is about 90 miles south near Devil's Lake.  That's a little deceptive though, the Turtle Mountain rez is the most widely dispersed of all tribes in the U.S., covering small areas over 3 states.  It is not know whether Lara lived on the main rez or one of the outlying sections.  GregJackP (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeals GregJackP (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The United States then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to hear the case." - The Manual of Style generally frowns on one-sentence orphan paragraphs. I'd suggest merging this one with the paragraph above it.

Arguments GregJackP (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Lara argued that since the tribe had no inherent sovereignty, they could only... ". - Subject-verb disagreement. "It" instead of "they" since "tribe" is singular?
 * "Olson noted that the Wheeler decision clearly stated that a tribe could prosecute a tribal member for a crime, and that same member could be then prosecuted for the same acts if they constituted a Federal crime without invoking double jeopardy." - Slightly awkward. Suggestion: "Olson noted that the Wheeler decision clearly stated that a tribe could prosecute a tribal member for a crime and that the Federal government could subsequently prosecute for the same criminal acts without invoking double jeopardy if the actions of the accused violated Federal law."

Majority opinion - moved to different location and expanded. Reversed means that SCOTUS reversed the decision of the 8th Circuit. GregJackP (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reversed." - Not sure what this is doing here?
 * "Breyer noted there is nothing in the Constitution or established precedent that prohibits Congress from relaxing such restrictions, Congress may do so." - Missing word? Maybe: "Breyer noted that since nothing in the Constitution or established precedent prohibits Congress from relaxing such restrictions, it may do so"?
 * "Since the prosecutions were charged by two separate, sovereign bodies the double jeopardy would not apply to Lara’s case." - Suggestion: "Since separate sovereign bodies had filed the charges, double jeopardy did not apply to Lara’s case."

Concurrences GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Justice John Paul Stevens issued a concurring opinion that noted that the Indian tribes had a stronger claim on inherent sovereign powers than do individual states." - "Have a stronger claim" rather than "had a stronger claim" to match the tense of "than do individual states"?

Dissenting opinion - on my screen it was four lines, but I don't have it set at a high resolution. GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style recommends using blockquotes for quotes of four lines or longer. This one is only two lines on my computer screen. I'd suggest using regular quotation marks in the main text and merging the parts of this subsection into a single paragraph.

Law reviews GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "It has been noted that Indians are very integrated across tribal boundaries, intermarrying across tribes, child and medical care across tribes, etcetera." - Not quite grammatical, and I'd either drop the etcetera or replace it with specifics. Suggestion: "It has been noted that Indians from different tribes intermarry and share child and medical-care services across tribal boundaries."
 * "Lara was an example of this, having married a Spirit Lake Sioux woman and moving to that reservation prior to his exclusion by the tribe." - Grammar. Suggestion: "Lara was an example of this; he married a Spirit Lake Sioux woman and moved to that reservation before his exclusion by the tribe."
 * It noted that "As "domestic dependent nations," American-Indian tribes possess criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country that is "complete, inherent, and exclusive," except as limited by Congress. - Single quotations marks are used inside of double quotation marks in cases of nested quotes; i.e., It noted that "As 'domestic dependent nations,' American-Indian tribes possess criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country that is 'complete, inherent, and exclusive,' except as limited by Congress." I'm assuming that the words in single quotes are actually set off in quotation marks in the source document.
 * "It was only when the tribe ran out of options did they issue an exclusion order to bar him from the reservation." - "It" rather than "they" since "tribe" is singular? Tighten to "Only when the tribe ran out of options did it exclude him from the reservation"?
 * "Another position taken was that the decision was in the long run a bad decision for tribal sovereignty... " - Tighten by shortening "a bad decision" to "bad"?
 * Should plenary power be linked or explained?

Books and media GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) - Added sentence at start of section to clarify. GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "on where Federal Indian Policy is headed in the future, but also where the policy is today" - Tighten and clarify thus: "on where Federal Indian Policy is headed but also where it is in 2010"?
 * It's not clear from the text itself why this section is called "Books and media".

Notes ❌ - Bolding is from the template 'Cite court' which is locked. I'm not sure how to correct this. GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The bolding should be deleted from citations 3, 4, and 5. The italics are fine.
 * Dates consisting solely of a month and year take no separator comma; e.g., "November, 2003," should be "November 2003."
 * Make sure that all of the citations are complete. Citation 24 lacks an access date, for example.

References GregJackP (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The book refs should include place of publication if possible. Usually you can find this kind of data online via World Cat.

Other ❌ - Image is from the template 'Infobox SCOTUS case' - I'm not sure how to correct this. GregJackP (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC) - there are not a lot of examples. The lone FA of WIkiProject SCOTUS cases is Roe v. Wade, which is of much higher importance and coverage. Of the 24 WikiProject Law articles, only 4 are court cases (2 from Australia, 1 from England, Roe). GregJackP (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GregJackP (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
 * In case you haven't already checked out similar articles at WP:FA, that might be worth doing just to see how other editors have handled similar subjects.
 * It might be helpful to add images if you can find any on the Commons or elsewhere that would be suitable. Mug shots of one or more of the Supreme Court justices might work, for example.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)