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 promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013 [1].

---

United States v. Lara[edit]

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all the FA criteria and is an important case in Native American case law at the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been a GA for about 2 years, but has recently been expanded significantly and just had a GOCE check. GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The lead should be expanded to cover the post-decision analysis and any other subsequent developments. Additionally, I think it'd be useful to have a section covering the history of Tribal-Federal relations since there seems to be a lot of precedent that pops up in the "Supreme Court" section without any prior discussion. This structure makes it a bit difficult to follow for someone unfamiliar with this area of the law. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand the lead and work on the requested section (lol, though this area of the law is difficult to follow for those who are familar with it, the Court has multiple personalities as far as Indian rights are concerned). It may take a bit, I'm busy IRL. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done part of the expansion of the lead (still have more to do). As far as the federal-tribal relations, what do you think about my adding a small subsection to subsequent developments, with a ((main)) template to the tribal sovereignty article? GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to clarify my point; I'm referring to federal-tribal relations in terms of the development of law since the 19th century. It seems that the only case discussed before you get to the issue around Lara is Duro. I think you need a subsection under "Background" that covers the changes in this area of the law over time. For example, when the dissent section says "... which referenced prior cases dealing with sovereignty and jurisdiction, from the decision made in United States v. Kagama,[100] to the opinion made in South Dakota v. Bourland", I should have already read some background on what the issues in those cases were. I'm aware this is complex (you have my admiration for attempting this challenge!) but such a section would greatly increase the clarity and readability of this article. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can do that. GregJackP Boomer! 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section on criminal jurisdiction to the background (Major Crimes Act). Hopefully this will work. It doesn't address Bourland, but I can't figure out where Souter was going with that - Bourland was a case involving hunting and fishing rights. GregJackP Boomer! 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been resolved; prose looks good and isn't too complicated to follow for someone (like me) who knows nothing about this area of the law. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.
  • I am used to articles telling me what the vote was, who was in the minority etc. The Decision section does not say this (nor that Scalia joined Souter in dissent). I know, it is in the infobox, but it is not sourced there. Could this be added?

• Done. Added to Dissent subsection, first sentence. Vote count added below.

• • Last sentence of Opinion of the Court is unsourced. I would also prefer that it say that The decision of the Eighth Circuit Court was reversed

• Done. Sourced to the Oyez Project, changed to "Eighth Circuit", added the vote count (7-2).

• • Why is it the Eight circuit court in the article and the 8th in the infobox?

• Comment - WP:MOSLAW requires following Bluebook citation style for cases. In the infobox, it is part of a case citation, hence "8th Cir." In text, it should be spelled out, as part of the proper name of the court ("United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"), shortened in text to "Eighth Circuit."

• • What is the source for the case being cited over 190 times?

• Not done (yet) - I'm looking for it and if I can't find it, I'll remove it.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I will get on these and see if we can take care of everything. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, while this candidacy seems to have been going reasonably well, I just wanted to note that the nominator seems to have retired as of yesterday. ceranthor 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will make any required changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye, a friend told me about the comments here, and I returned to fix what I could, but I don't know if I'll be back again. I don't think of this as coming back from retirement, just as closing out unfinished business, but I appreciate you help. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comments from Ceranthor

• No dab links. External links check out.
• Formatting of reference 9 is broken.

Formatting had been fixed until FiachraByrne reverted my corrections. I've fixed it again, and removed (again) the information I couldn't find a cite for. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote 3 refers to $, must be USD but not specified.

Y'all need to make up your mind. Do you want USD in articles or not? I get tired of taking it out, putting it in, taking it out, etc. Let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay then. ceranthor 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to link states in Footnote 14 or 15.

It's a template. Plus, it is not linking the states, it is a link to the statute (U.S.C. stands for United States Code). GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. ceranthor 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is source 124 a publication like a book? A page number, if available, is desirable.

The page number is present, page 90. The reference states: David Wilkins, Justice Thomas and Federal Indian Law – Hitting His Stride, America is Indian Country: Opinions and Perspectives from Indian Country Today 90 (Jose Barreiro & Tim Johnson eds. 2004). Formatting for Bluebook is: Article author in roman type, article name in italics, volume number if needed, book or work title in small caps, page number, parenthetical editor(s) and date of publication.

• While I'm fairly certain abbreviation is okay in references, omitting proper names is not. Source 125's reference to The New York Times must include the proper "The" in front of "NY Times". The publisher (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.) should also be mentioned for that source.

Not if you are citing per Bluebook rules. Certain abbreviations are mandated by the citation style. See Table 13, page 458, Bluebook, 19th edition, The New York Times is always abbreviated as "N.Y. Times" (note that there is no space between N. & Y. - that is intentional also, per Rule 6.1(a)). See also page 444, stating to "Omit the words 'a,' 'at,' 'in,' 'of,' and 'the'...." Publisher's names are always omitted when citing per Bluebook. Bluebook is an acceptable citation style per WP:CITE#Citation style, and if you use the citation style you should follow its rules. For newspapers, it is Rule 16.6, pp. 151-52. The New York Times is shown as an example numerous times in the Bluebook, and it is always cited as I have noted above. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyez Project should be linked, as should Indian Country Today Media Network.

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably come back to look at the prose, since this is in desperate need of reviews. ceranthor 15:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It reads well. I keep finding typos here and there (sorry I'm a grammar pedant), but otherwise I think it is concise, flowing, and enjoyable. ceranthor 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-USGov, PD-US, PD-1923). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. - The articls is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive. Nice work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.