Talk:Bryan v. Itasca County

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Bryan v. Itasca County has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bryan v. Itasca County/GA1. 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)

N 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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

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.

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bryan v. Itasca County/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is my first time reviewing a law article, but I think I should be able to give it a GA-quality review (I'm currently taking a law class, albeit in education; plus, for what it's worth, I'm from Minnesota). The earliest I can probably post a full review is Friday though, for which I apologize. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Preliminary comments
  • Luther's argument seems pretty brief (and flimsy). Was there nothing else he used in his argument? You say there was "no dispute as to the facts of the case," so did he concede that the mobile home was on reservation land? I just feel there could be a few more added details here.
  • Prose issue: beware of the amounts of "that" you're using; some are redundant (such as in the first paragraph detailing Brennan's decision)
  • "This ruling in a challenge to a tax bill ..." this sentence doesn't seem quite right (missing/improper word?)
  • "...had the effect of enabling Indian tribes to earn over $200 billion in gaming revenue". This is a rather vague statement. Is there a year for this (as of 2012?) I assume the source means nationwide (all tribes)?
  • "The first such cases involved bingo..." I would be more specific here. Perhaps reword to "The first cases influenced by Bryan involved bingo..."
  • The lead could do a better job summarizing the article -- I would briefly add case significance and impact, for instance.

Overall this is a solid article. Please take my initial comments with a grain of salt -- I'd be happy to relook at my suggestions if you disagree with any of them. I'll give you three days to respond to this review, and will then add more comments, if needed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 01:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Response, in order listed:

  • Luther's argument. There was no question that the mobile home was on reservation property, it is noted in the History section as being on the reservation. I expanded somewhat on his argument (his argument was only 9 minutes long at SCOTUS). In addition, Minnesota stipulated to the facts in the case--the only dispute was whether the state could impose taxes on reservation land.
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • I'll correct and reword the excessive use of "that."
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • Yes check.svg Done - reworded tax bill sentence.
  • Yes check.svg Done - added additional info to sentence.
  • Yes check.svg Done - used your suggested language.
  • I'll look at this and revise. It may take more than three days - I've got a good deal going on in real life, but I should be able to get to it within a week, it that would be possible.
    • Yes check.svg Done - added a sentence on the impact of the decision to the lead.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 02:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Let me know if I need to make other changes. I am going to go through the references and convert them all to Bluebook format, per MOSLAW. I appreciate you taking the time to review this. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. I'm wrapping up my semester, and should be able to take another look at the article by the 12th. Ruby 2010/2013 02:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • After giving it another read-through, spot-checking a few sources, and making a few minor edits, I am satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 23:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)