Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive2

Menominee Tribe v. United States

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Added material to lead, corrected comma usage. GregJackP Boomer! 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers

Done. Locations removed for all publishers. GregJackP Boomer! 12:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether page numbers appear before or after ISBNs
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mix templated and untemplated citations of the same type

~~Not done. Could you explain or point me to an example in the article? Thanks.~~ GregJackP Boomer! 12:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to indicate that there's no ISBN for books over 40 years old, but check whether these have OCLCs

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you abbreviate states

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 11:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether you include a space between location and publisher

Now moot - removed location from refs. GregJackP Boomer! 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN43: what kind of source is this? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on these. FN43 is a Law Review. GregJackP Boomer! 02:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. GregJackP Boomer! 11:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]