Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton/archive1

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 GrahamColm 16:06, 15 September 2012 [1].

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton edit

Featured article candidates/Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton/archive1

Nominator(s): Savidan 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's a good model for articles about lower court cases. It's about a land claim by two Native American tribes to the majority of the U.S. state of Maine that was settled over the course of a decade for almost $100M. I look forward to comments. Savidan 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

*Need alt text for First Circuit seal;

In section "Aftermath", para 3, line 1, governs is misspelled;

In section "As a precedent", line 2, capitalize "passamaquoddy"; and

It might be good to explain that traditionally the federal government and the tribe had concurrent jurisdiction in Indian country, and that the state did not have criminal or civil jurisdiction unless granted by Congress.

Very well written and referenced. GregJackP Boomer! 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have made these changes. With regarded to the last one, I have specified "outside of Maine," because, as the article notes, the prior situation in Maine was one of de facto state jurisdiction. Savidan 15:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:RogersClarkBallardMorton.jpg: source link returns 404 error
File:ArchibaldCox.jpg: source link returns 404 error, and file is tagged as lacking author information
File:William_Cohen,_official_portrait.jpg: source link returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to locate the Morton and Cohen images. With Morton, it appears the Commerce Dep't website just changed around the links. With Cohen, I can no longer find it on the DOD's webiste, but I can find it on Maine's website with the credit "Photo Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense" (which confirms the PD copyright tag). I cannot locate the Cox image or identify its author, so I have removed it from the article. Please let me know if you are not satisfied with the fixes to the Morton and Cohen images. Savidan 05:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:NuclearWarfare has located a link and replaced the image. I am satisfied with the link provided too. Please advise if you are not. Savidan 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did the GA review of this article and although I don't have time to examine the article again, at the time I noted some concerns which were satisfactorily resolved for GA but may be of use in assessing this article for FA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the entirety of your comments, and I have done the same Westlaw and Lexis searches that been essentially copy-and-pasted to the talk page. I readily admit that the article does not cite every single law review article that cites this case (often in a single paragraph or footnote, perhaps in a string citation). Instead, I have focused on sources that devote substantial attention to the case and go into meaningful detail. Savidan 09:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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