Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

[edit]

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Supreme Court case dealing with the Indian Child Welfare Act, and is only the second case on the Act to reach SCOTUS. It had been previously submitted, but I withdrew it to get a peer review and a copy edit. I just closed the peer review, and Eric Corbett was kind enough to proofread and copy edit the article for me. Eric said that he didn't see too much wrong with the article (here), so I wanted to resubmit it for FA status. GregJackP Boomer! 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say at the peer review. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am too involved with this article to be a neutral peer reviewer, but I do support this FAC. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

[edit]

Remains a good article. I really struggled with the tense shifts (and a missing word) in the first para of the lead, though i think i could see why it was constructed in the way that it is (that was a joke, sort of). It currently reads:

...was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American (Indian) biological fathers who were not custodians of an Indian child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child had never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Indian family also not apply, nor was the preferred placement of the child in another Indian family required when no other party had formally sought to adopt the child.

I think it perhaps should read:

...was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American (Indian) biological fathers who are not custodians of an Indian child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child has never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Indian family also do not apply, nor is the preferred placement of the child in another Indian family required when no other party has formally sought to adopt the child.

Other points:

  • "The stay was lifted in September 2013, and the child was turned over to her adoptive parents on the same day." If you are going to refer to a "same" day, then "September 2013" needs to be modified to include an actual date, otherwise it should read "same month".
  • "Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs", I suppose "in" is OK, but would have thought "to" was more conventional.
  • "...and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child". If "interests" are plural, then "that" should be "those". Actually, probably better still would be "...and stated that tribal stability was as important as the best interests of the child".
  • In the Trial court section: It states "the "Existing Indian Family" exception was inapplicable in this case". However, the reader has not been told what this exception is, so this is rather confusing. Can the text tell us about this in an earlier section, to prepare the reader?
  • I think it is vital to somewhere introduce the reader to the concept of "continued custody" as it appears in the Act, before we get to the opinions.
Just let me know what you think. I'm not saying I won't change it, I just don't think it's a good idea to get into that area, any more than I felt that the blood quantum issue (see talk page) should be addressed. They are on opposite sides of the issue, but both are overly contentious without an up-side, IMO. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Brown has stated that he will fight the order in Oklahoma, with the aid of the Cherokee Nation." Surely, given what is stated in the para following, this should read "Brown stated that he would fight..."

Excellent work. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing:

  • Lead tense shifts.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 11:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stay was lifted in September 2013, and the child was turned over to her adoptive parents on the same day." If you are going to refer to a "same" day, then "September 2013" needs to be modified to include an actual date, otherwise it should read "same month".
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 11:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs", I suppose "in" is OK, but would have thought "to" was more conventional.
Not done. Standard language for testimony to a House Committee. GregJackP Boomer! 11:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child". If "interests" are plural, then "that" should be "those". Actually, probably better still would be "...and stated that tribal stability was as important as the best interests of the child".
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 11:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Trial court section: It states "the "Existing Indian Family" exception was inapplicable in this case". However, the reader has not been told what this exception is, so this is rather confusing. Can the text tell us about this in an earlier section, to prepare the reader?
I wikilinked it. It is not that critical to the case, and I think that this can address it for those that are curious. Let me know what you think. GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is vital to somewhere introduce the reader to the concept of "continued custody" as it appears in the Act, before we get to the opinions.
The entire subsection reads "No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child." There is not really a concept in the Act, this is more a case of Justice Alito finding a way to justify the removal of the child from the Indian home. Although not in the article (due to NPOV concerns), there were allegations that Chief Justice Roberts was biased as an adoptive father of two children adopted somewhat irregularly (see Adoptive father John Roberts: Not impartial in the Baby Veronica case, Birth Mother First Mother Forum blog, Aug. 13, 2013); both Roberts and Justice Thomas were adoptive parents. Those three (Roberts, Thomas, & Alito) often vote together in a block. I really don't want to get into an in-depth review of "continued custody" due to the large can of worms that it would open up in discussing it. GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(TPSer weighing in) "Continued custody" isn't really a concept in the way I think you are thinking, Hamiltonstone; it's not "custody" as in people playing ping-pong with the child as happens in a divorce case, "Custody" has a different meaning in ICWA; read this and see if that clarifies matters. And yeah, getting into the whole "were the justices biased" thing is to open a huge can of worms. Also the fact that they clearly didn't even interpret the law correctly, in that tribal membership is a political,not a racial, determination to be made by the tribe. But it's the SCOTUS, so they are always right... sigh... Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Brown has stated that he will fight the order in Oklahoma, with the aid of the Cherokee Nation." Surely, given what is stated in the para following, this should read "Brown stated that he would fight..."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delldot ∇.

Just one quick suggestion: I think it would be a good idea to establish the time frame (a range of dates) at the beginning of the Indian Child Welfare Act subsection, rather than just saying 'Historically'. delldot ∇. 06:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Fixed. FYI, the lead editor is out of commission for a few days, so I am taking over the FAC fixes here, let me know what's still outstanding here and I will work on it; I babysat the article the last time the other editor was not available to work on it too. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you, that was all I had. delldot ∇. 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning oppose: not to rain on anyone's parade, but the use of the legal profession's Bluebook style violates provisions of the MOS.

  • Small caps as a case style is to be "avoided" per MOS:SMALLCAPS.
  • Italics are supposed to be used "Works of art and artifice: Books ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" as well as court case titles per MOS:ITALIC.
  • Articles and chapters in books are supposed to be in quotation marks per WP:Manual of Style#Names and titles.

Bluebook style reverses the use of roman and italic text between the components of larger publications and those larger publications. Yet this reversal is not supported by our Manual of Style. In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies in how citations are formatted.

  • Some authors are in small caps (FN 2–5) but others are not (17, 18, 23).
  • At least one article from a TV station is cited using the station's call letters (FN 78) while others are using station "branding" (FN 77).

I'm neutral on the conflict on Bluebook vs. the MOS issue, but my preference would be to have the citations conform to the MOS. However, there needs to be consistency in the application of formatting in the citations, something which is currently lacking. The article cannot be promoted until that inconsistency is repaired at a minimum, and preferably until the citation style is harmonized with the MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 09:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, Imzadi, is your "leaning oppose" SOLELY due to the citation issue, or do you have other concerns? If you have other concerns, can you list? In the meantime, I am going to research the question of Bluebook citation style for legal citations mixed with more standardized style for other, non-legal citations and get an outside opinion on your concerns, I know that within some of the legal wikiproject talk, Bluebook citation is quite strongly advocated, and I would hate to go through this and change everything only to have someone else come back and blast the article for NOT using Bluebook. I also don't know if there is a policy on mixed citation format, but I shall ask. I wasn't lead on this, so I'm going to seek a consensus on the issue and try not to take any position on it one way or the other (other than to grumble if I have to fix several zillion citations, but hey, I volunteered to see this FAC through, so I'll do what I gotta do...). Stay tuned and if anyone else here has advice or comments, please weigh in. I will wait to make the changes until there is a consensus from those who have taken more legal articles to FAC than I. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, our MOS says that articles are supposed to in roman (aka plain) text surrounded by quotation marks and that the full publication (book, magazine, etc) is what is put in italics. However, Bluebook style says that articles are in italics and the full publication is in roman or roman small caps. Small caps are to be "avoided" per our MOS. FAs must comply with the MOS, per the criteria, but WP:Citing sources lists Bluebook as a style that "exists" but it doesn't endorse its usage, per se. We have a conflict that must be resolved before any article using Bluebook can be promoted, period. Imzadi 1979 → 04:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that statement does not appear to be accurate. On a cursory glance, here is what I have so far. All reviewers please advise:

  1. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(legal)  : "Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions." For the USA, that's Bluebook or AWLD, which is similar. Doesn't say that (for example) news sources also have to go to Bluebook. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are 59 FA-class articles tagged by WikiProject Law: http://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Law&quality=FA-Class > Of these, a handful are SCOTUS decisions, and a cursory glance is as follows:
  3. United States v. Lara, Menominee Tribe v. United States, - SCOTUS decisions, appears to use Bluebook small caps for some citations, may be some mixed MOS. Appears to be similar to this article and passed FAC.
  4. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Afroyim v. Rusk, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke -- SCOTUS decisions, do not use small caps, so not pure Bluebook style, but otherwise is consistent and proper legal citation. Also passed FAC.
So there is no clear consensus. With this data, can additional reviewers contrast to this article and suggest changes, if any?? (Preferably the solution that is the least amount of revision, if possible?) I do not agree that the conflict has to be resolved on a meta-level, as both styles have already been promoted. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to recognize the issue in past FACS does not resolve the issue. The small caps point is minor. Bluebook style puts newspaper/magazine/journal articles and book chapters into italics, which our MOS says are to be put into roman text enclosed by quotation marks. Bluebook style says to put the title of the newspaper/magazine/journal/book into roman, which our MOS say is supposed to be in italics. FAs have to comply with the MOS, period.
Now, I've been taking some college classes last semester and this one. On my bookshelf are the current editions of the APA and MLA style guides plus the current edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. For a class that specifies Chicago, I used Chicago citations for all of my papers, period. When I cited the Michigan Bar Journal in a class that used Chicago style, the title of the article on John Voelker went into roman text surrounded by quotation marks and the journal title was in italics, as Chicago says. For another class, I used MLA, and now I have a class that requires APA. In all cases, the citations conform(ed) to the style requirements of the class, not the citation style of the subject matter.
To be an FA, an article must comply with our MOS, and the provisions of our MOS on the usage of italics and quotation marks conflict with the proper usage of Bluebook style. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal journal. We have an MOS here that gives specific requirements, and FAS have to comply with them. So yes, I'm leaning oppose on the basis of citation formatting issues that conflict with our MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That's BS. You need to recheck the citation standards. WP:CITEVAR states "[A]ny consistent style may be used. . . ." In addition, your statement that no article using Bluebook can be promoted is BS, as a number of legal featured articles use the Bluebook citation style. Your objections have been previously addressed in discussions on the promotion of those articles. All three of my featured articles use Bluebook referencing, and two have been featured on the main page. In addition, Wehwalt (who has more FAs than any other editor) did not find it to be a problem, nor did Eric Corbett (one of the best at copy-editing FAs) find it to be a problem.
Our MOS does not require the use of a "house" style, does not require roman text for articles, nor italics for publications. All of the so-called standards you are speaking of are not in the MOS, nor are they in WP:Citing sources. Instead, it states "typically" when addressing how to "cite", which means that there are other ways to appropriately cite for articles.
Consensus also does not support your position. The issues you address were recently brought up and failed at WT:Citing sources and at several other locations. Smallcaps are to be "avoided" but are not prohibited, and are required by the citation style being used. This is not a valid objection to promotion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing:

Not fixed. Invalid objection, this has been repeatedly addressed in FAC discussions. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics are supposed to be used "Works of art and artifice: Books ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" as well as court case titles per MOS:ITALIC.
Not fixed. Incorrect application of standard, which is directed at the body of text, not the footnotes. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. Conflict with citation style used. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebook style reverses the use of roman and italic text between the components of larger publications and those larger publications. Yet this reversal is not supported by our Manual of Style. In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies in how citations are formatted.

Not fixed, per above. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some authors are in small caps (FN 2–5) but others are not (17, 18, 23).
Correct. The authors are correctly formatted according to the Bluebook citation style. For example, in FN 4 & 5, the authors wrote a book, therefore they are in smallcaps. Authors of a webpage (FN 17), a newspaper article (FN 18), and a law journal article (FN 23) are properly formatted in normal text. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one article from a TV station is cited using the station's call letters (FN 78) while others are using station "branding" (FN 77).
Fixed. I left off the "5" from the station's branding ("KOCO 5"), see KOCO-TV. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on the conflict on Bluebook vs. the MOS issue, but my preference would be to have the citations conform to the MOS. However, there needs to be consistency in the application of formatting in the citations, something which is currently lacking. The article cannot be promoted until that inconsistency is repaired at a minimum, and preferably until the citation style is harmonized with the MOS.

This is not going to be fixed, per my above comments. GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents: I don't like Bluebook, and I wish we had a house style for referencing all WP articles. But we don't have one: MOS provides guidance, but I'm with GregJack that it does not mandate certain styles to the exclusion of others. The most important things are that referencing is comprehensive, and internally consistent. It appears to me that the referencing here meets those key requirements. I do have a concern that the MOSSMALLCAPS advice appears to conflict with the advice elsewhere that Bluebook is a referencing style people might choose to use; I think the problem arises not because Bluebook should be avoided, but because that advice was aimed at other issues, and Bluebook superficially is caught up by its injunction. In this case, I think it might help if the text at SMALLCAPS was tweaked for clarification. I would not let the referencing of this article be a factor in its FAC consideration. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that consistent style matters, and given Wehwalt did sign off on this, I tend to respect his views on the matter. But because it IS hard to find the original citation, we may want to also try to add more links to the citations that are pinpoint cites, so that non-attorneys can more easily find the material. I also have some concerns about the periodical citations also benefitting from wikilinking to URLs more than they do. I do think Imzadi's insistence that adherence to the purest form of the MOS is mandated is an exaggeration (as even the MOS has multiple acceptable citation formats, harv, sfn, etc...) and that there is room for some variation. Personally, I hate smallcaps, but it's not something I'd derail the FAC over, but I do think WP Law should address this issue, as ALWD manual and others have some variations. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts (and COI): Greg, maybe we could avoid simply saying "that's BS"? It doesn't exactly put the reader in a happy and accepting frame of mind when approaching the rest of the comment ;p. COI: I believe I provided a GA review for this article a few months ago.
    So, on referencing: as Greg notes (however he chooses to note it), we don't have a single consistent style; much like the AmEng v BrEng v CaEng v InEng v...so on, debate, the standard is pretty much "as long as it's consistent within the article, leave it be". This is, of course, a rule designed to avoid precisely the situation we're now in, where people are spending hours of their time on an argument over italics in reference tags. My personal preference is away from Blue Book, which I find to be of limited readability (I much prefer OSCOLA), but my personal preference is irrelevant, as are those of Imzadi or Hamiltonstone or Montana, insofar as we didn't write the article. Blue Book is acceptable under the MOS, and the criteria for FA are "follow the MOS". This article meets that standard. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Bluebook doesn't follow the MOS. The MOS specifies roman text surrounded by quotation marks for article titles and italics for the encompassing work. I will not retract my oppose unless the article meets the requirements of the MOS. The delegates are free to weigh it accordingly. Imzadi 1979 → 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out to the delegates that "typically" (which is the language used in the MOS) does not convey a requirement, much less "specifies" as Imzadi1979 claims. This boils down to a case of Imzadi doesn't like it, which is not a ground for denying promotion. GregJackP Boomer! 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imzadi1979: this seems to be going over old ground yet again. Let's just make this simple: if you cannot show that the MOS requires these elements - not suggests, not considers it used by 51 percent of Wikipedia, or even 80 percent of wikipedia, requires - can you please withdraw your objection? Otherwise you're holding the article to the standard of "it must meet every potentially-contradictory requirement of every potential commenter", which, last time I checked, was not in the reviewing guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

[edit]
  • File:010 alito.jpg: The {{Usc}} template is missing a parameter and misdisplaying
  • All other files look properly tagged & sourced—most are from US government sources and thus in the public domain

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Alito photo with another from Commons (File:Justice Alito official.jpg: since I don't have a clue how to fix the {{Usc}} template. The new file is tagged and sourced as US Government photo. GregJackP Boomer! 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Regardless of the merits of the concern raised over citation formatting (and I lean towards Ironholds' position of consistency within a given article being more important than a particular style), there isn't sufficient commentary here to establish a clear consensus to promote, nor has there been any activity since the beginning of the month, so I'll be archiving the nom shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Adoptive_Couple_v._Baby_Girl/archive2&oldid=1088118749"