I am nominating this article for featured article, as I believe that it meets the criteria. It is currently a good article, is stable, and is written in accordance with WP:MOSLAW and WP:SCOTUS criteria, especially in regards to the Bluebook reference style (which is slightly different from other reference styles). The case is a landmark case in Native American (Indian) law as regards treaty rights. It was previously nominated and I was in the process of tweaking it to remove objections when I had to unexpectedly leave Wikipedia for a while. It has just been peer reviewed. GregJackPBoomer! 18:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments: haven't read the article, but the lead looks a bit small at a glance. Should probably double check that it summarizes the whole article. Also, the comma usage in the lead is inconsistent: "In 1961 Congress terminated" vs. "In 1963, three members of the tribe" Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Added material to lead, corrected comma usage. GregJackPBoomer! 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Be consistent in whether you include a space between location and publisher
Now moot - removed location from refs. GregJackPBoomer! 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
FN43: what kind of source is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll get right on these. FN43 is a Law Review. GregJackPBoomer! 02:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment External link farm, with a bumper crop. Are we OK with these things these days? My dim recollection is that we aren't. But hey, I'm just here for the free beer. – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If my quick check was accurate, most of the external links are from U.S. Statutes citation templates, with the remainder being in actual references. Do I need to remove these? GregJackPBoomer! 03:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't rush to rmv them yet. I have long been in the habit of rmving external links on sight, and usually that is the correct thing to do, but it is quite possible that your links to U.S. Statutes represent a special case. Let's wait and see what someone else (presumably more knowledgeable than me) says. – Ling.Nut (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think that the article is terribly well written. For one thing, there's far too much stuffing of prose into footnotes, which I feel is a poor substitute for working the information into the body text. If it's important enough to be noted in a footnote, it's important enoguht to be put in the body text. Additionally, some sentences (such as "In the meantime, the tribe had been...") don't feel professional, and should be reworked. Finally, the last line of the lead ("This case is a landmark case in Native American case law.") is not clearly supported in the body text, and therefore must either be backed by sourced prose or removed as POV. This is alsoSven Manguard 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree on the footnotes. Per FN, subsection WP:REFGROUP, this article uses two different groups of footnotes. The notes section is used to show explanatory notes, to clarify items in the text, whereas the reference section is used for citations. I did not find anything in the featured article criteria that prohibits or discourages the use of explanatory notes. If there is, please let me know and I'll correct that. GregJackPBoomer! 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to leave the oppose then. I'm trying to be diplomatic, but your quality of writing is, while decent, below what I'd consider FA quality. Just because a specific practice is not expressly discouraged by the FAC does not mean that it's not grounds for an oppose. If I think that the prose isn't FA standard, which I do, I have every write to oppose. You've got a lot of sections that could use flushing out, but the regulars will point that out later, I suppose. As for the explanatory footnotes, that's a major part of the reason why I think that the prose isn't up to snuff. That many footnotes is a red flag. Sven ManguardWha? 05:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand, and I certainly did not want to give the impression that you did not have the right to register your opposition. I do appreciate your input on this, even if we do disagree on the explanatory notes. GregJackPBoomer! 15:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
What, in particular, is not good about the explanatory notes? Is it how they are used here or the concept in general? Such notes are used in scholarly work, though they are not the majority usage, and our reference formatting is uniquely well-suited to accommodate them. Yes, this is somewhat of a hobby-horse of mine. Works are generally improved, in my view, by including explanatory notes. No opinion on whether the article as a whole is FA-quality, as I don't normally frequent these parts. --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 07:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll work on the sentence you mentioned, and if there are any others, please let me know and I'll fix them also. GregJackPBoomer! 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The "case is a landmark case in Native American case law" is in fact clearly supported in the body text (in section Subsequent Developments) and is supported by two citations, to a) National Indian Law Library; American Association of Law Libraries (2002). Landmark Indian law cases. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. pp. 177–184. ISBN978-0-8377-0157-8; and b) Johansen, Bruce Elliott (1998). The encyclopedia of Native American legal tradition. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 189–190. ISBN978-0-313-30167-4. I can provide additional citations that list the case as a landmark case, but I felt that the two refs provided were sufficient. GregJackPBoomer! 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I guess so. I think that section is awfully weak, neither being cited a 200 times, being used internationally, or being taught to law school students is especially special for surpreme court cases, but I'm not going to argue the point further.
I'll work on improving that section. I will note that there are hundreds, if not thousands of SCOTUS cases that are not routinely taught at law school. Again, thanks. GregJackPBoomer! 15:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll chime in with a complete layman's view. The article appears to be thoroughly researched and very well put-together. That said, I struggled to understand the first few sentences upon first reading, and had to re-read the lead before I fully understood what this case was all about and why it was important. I would thus suggest making the lead more accessible, if that is possible without compromising its factual accuracy. Here are a few ideas for possible consideration:
It seems to me that you could make the first part of the first sentence shorter without losing any meaning, viz: "a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that tribal hunting and fishing rights retained by treaty".
Second, I think "granted by treaty" may be a better phrase than "retained by treaty", since "retained" is somewhat ambiguous; I assume the intended meaning is something like "that the tribe continued to possess," but there is no antecedent here. Does not "retain" imply an earlier challenge to the tribe's possession? Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Now moving to the next part of the sentence, "were not abrogated after federal recognition was abolished ". Could we use a more accessible word than "abrogated" here? How about "relinquished"? I could also see a potential rephrasing so you have the tribe "did not give up" its rights to hunt and fish. I also note that it isn't entirely clear what the abolition of federal recognition refers to. Is it abolition of recognition of the tribe's rights, or of the tribe itself? We only learn later on which it is.
The final part of the sentence, I think, has some similar ambiguities: "by the Menominee Termination Act without a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect by Congress." But a statement to what effect? We later learn that this would be a statement to the effect that tribal fishing and hunting rights would be abrogated upon de-recognition of a tribe, or at least I believe that's the case. The "to that effect" phrase, however, could refer to something else in the sentence, such as rights being retained by treaty. And I do not at all mean to be snarky here, but does Congress issue statements? I thought Congress passed laws.
If I were writing this article, I would begin it as simply as possible and establish the significance of the ruling quite quickly to give readers an idea of why it's noteworthy. I would likely say something like, "Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled the Menominee could keep their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law." And then I would go on from there to describe what, exactly, happened. This is just a suggestion, however, and keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer, so I may not quite get it.--Batard0 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
@ 1. - Good point, I'm on my phone right now, but I'll change it when I can get on my computer.
@ 2. - I have to disagree. "Granted" infers that the federal government gave the hunting and fishing rights to the tribe, while "retained" means that the tribe kept the rights that the tribe had exercised on their land for hundreds of years, even though they were ceding the land to the United States. It is similar to a property owner retaining mineral rights when they sell land.
@ 3. - I'll clear that part up.
@ 4. - "Statement" was the language the court used, referring to the wording of the statute passed by Congress. The court meant that any termination of hunting and fishing rights must be explicitly stated. Also, the loss of federal recognition did not affect treaty rights, the Menominee were still a tribe but were just not recognised for purposes of federal aid. I'll clear it up.
@ 5. - Good point, if you don't mind, I'll use that language. GregJackPBoomer! 02:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)