Wikipedia:Peer review/Ex parte Crow Dog/archive1

Ex parte Crow Dog

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I am submitting this article for peer review to see what needs to be done to take this to FA status. Any suggestions or recommendations are welcome. GregJackP Boomer! 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting account of an important case. I have quite a few suggestions for further improvement.

• The dab finder at the top of this review page finds one dab, Lakota.

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "court did not have jurisdiction to try a Native American (Indian) who killed another Indian" - Link Native American to Native Americans in the United States?
• court did not have jurisdiction to try a Native American (Indian) who killed another Indian" - Modify slightly to: "court did not have jurisdiction to try Crow Dog, a Native American (Indian) who killed another Indian"? Otherwise not all readers will instantly understand that Crow Dog is a person.
• Link Crow Dog on first use here in the lead?
• "on the reservation" - Link reservation to Indian reservation?
• "The tribe handled it according to Sioux tradition" - Link Sioux?
• Link Supreme Court to Supreme Court of the United States?
• Move the Congress link up one sentence to the first instance.

 Done with the exception of SCOTUS link - already linked in first sentence. GregJackP Boomer! 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Spotted Tail

• "and was known to the BIA" - Spell out and abbreviate on first use: Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)?
• "confrontation where Crow Dog pointed a rifle at Spotted Tail" - "During which" rather than "where"?
• I find this section confusing. For one thing, it's not clear until the sentence that begins, "In another version", that the first version was a version. In fact, I'm not sure how many versions there were. Apparently all versions are the same up to the sentence that says, "At a tribal meeting on August 5, 1881, a number of tribal members criticized Spotted Tail for taking the wife of a crippled man." If so, perhaps that sentence could begin a separate paragraph and could start with "In one version of the events leading to the murder... ".
• "At a tribal meeting on August 5, 1881, a number of tribal members criticized Spotted Tail for taking the wife of a crippled man." - More detail is needed here. In what sense did he take her? Does this mean "had an affair with", or does it mean "grabbed and ran off with" or something else?
• "It was a latter conflict with the Indian Agent that forced the disbanding of the tribal police and Crow Dog's loss of his position" - Do you mean "later" rather than "latter"?
• "by payment of US$600" - No need for US in front of $ in a US-centric article. Ditto for note 5.

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Trial

• "Surprising many of the white citizens of the area, Crow Dog turned himself back in when he was supposed to report back." - Tighten to "Surprising many of the white citizens of the area, Crow Dog returned to court as required."

• "The territorial Supreme Court affirmed in May 1882 the conviction and the execution was rescheduled for May 11, 1883." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "In May 1882, the territorial Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, and the execution was rescheduled for May 11, 1883."

• "accepted the case.[1][9][10][6][14]" - The custom is to arrange a series of citations like this in ascending order: 1, 6, 9, 10, 14.

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of the Court

• "The first statute prohibited murder on federal land, the second statute applies the first statute to reservations, and the last has specific exceptions to prosecution." - All past tense; i.e., "applied" and "had"?

• "laws on federal crimes apply to Indian reservations" - Should that be "applying" rather than "apply"?

• "He stated that since the law has not been amended" - "Had" rather than "has"?

• "since implied repeals are not favored" - "Were" rather than "are"?

• "such a repeal requires" - "Required"? All past tense.

• "Matthews also noted in a clear statement to the sovereignty of the tribe and discomfort in applying white standards to the tribes that:" - Tighten by deleting "Matthews also said of the Indians that"

 Done except for:

• Implied repeals was not changed - this is still current legal thought, they are not favored. "Were" would imply, in my view, that this was a former legal doctrine.
• Changed wording on tribal sovereignty - this is one of the distinct points in the case, and should remain in the article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Major Crimes Act of 1885

• Link Secretary of the Interior to United States Secretary of the Interior?

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 15:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tribal sovereignty

• Add the dates for United States v. Lara, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and United States v. Kagama to the text to establish a sense of chronology.

• "Congress has subsequently used this power to breach the Medicine Lodge Treaty with the Kiowa without consent of the tribe." - Could "subsequently" be made specific? Would it be possible to elaborate? Breached how?

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 16:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See also

• No need to list anything here that has already been linked in the main text.

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Notes

• Would it be possible to give phonetic pronunciations for the non-English names?
• "Spotted Tail had killed Big Mouth" - Link Big Mouth here and delete from See also?

 Done - on link and see also. I haven't found anything to use as the phonetic for the non-English names. GregJackP Boomer! 19:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

• File:CrowDogHorse1898.jpg. The copyright belongs to the Nebraska State Historical Society. If you follow the link on the image license page, you will find "PERMISSION. Permission for use is granted at the NSHS’s discretion for a single and one-time use. Reproductions from the NSHS’s collections cannot be sub-leased or sold by the user, nor may the user permit others to reproduce the materials or any facsimiles of them by any means for any purpose. They also may not be transferred, donated or sold to another person or organization. The NSHS does not issue permission in perpetuity or without limitations." This means that the Commons license is incorrect. This appears to be a good-faith mistake on the part of the uploader, but it means that the image should be deleted from the Commons and can't be used in this article.

 Done - replaced with LoC version with no repo restrictions due to publication in 1900. GregJackP Boomer! 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• File:Spotted Tail.jpg. This one is probably OK since it comes from the Library of Congress, according to the license page. However, you will need to track down the url of the appropriate Library of Congress page and add a link so that readers can verify the license. See the license page for File:Thomas Stanley Matthews - Brady-Handy.jpg, for example. It looks OK.

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. 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) 01:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Another reviewer's query

• Is it normal practice not to provide page numbers for quotes from court judgements? (I am looking particularly at the "Opinion of the court" section)
• The article, particularly its last section (Tribal sovereignty) does a very good job of using secondary sources, not the case law, to support the text. Well done. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)